Lynn and Deyon Boughton v. Cotter Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the same criteria preventing deposition of opposing counsel apply to protecting opposing counsel from being compelled to testify at trial
• holding it was not an abuse of discretion to preclude the deposition of opposing counsel when required to protect a party from an unnecessary burden pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)
• approving of the three-pronged test set forth in Shelton, but ultimately upholding the district court’s application of the rule under Rule 26
• discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) providing a court the authority to make “any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression”
• abuse of discretion standard employed only if district court applied correct criteria to facts of case
• \The possibility that the plaintiffs may have difficulty enforcing a judgment against [the subsidiary] alone is not the type of injustice that warrants piercing the corporate veil.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).