Louisville Pillow Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• declining to dismiss the defendant’s motion to compel where the defendants argued that prior to filing the motion, the defendants substantially complied with Rule 37(a)(1)’s meet and confer requirement
• Rule 37(a)(1) meet-and-confer requirement does not apply where record shows such attempt would be futile
• “[D]irect supervision by an attorney of a party's non-attorney representative who in anticipation of litigation prepared a requested document . . . is not a prerequisite to work-product protection under Rule 26(b)(3)(A).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).