Madison v. Dyer

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the first factor weighed in favor of reopening where no trial date had been set and the parties had a schedule in place for summary judgment motions when the discovery issue arose
• allowing additional discovery, “[n]otwithstanding the delinquency of the [defendants],” because “a trial date has not been set and the prejudice to the plaintiff can be offset”
• allowing additional discovery, “[n]otwithstanding the delinquency of the . . . defendants,” because “a trial date has not been set and the prejudice to the plaintiff can be offset”
• finding this factor weighed in favor of movant because no trial date was set
• finding that, although the court did “not condone the . . . defendants’ actions here with regard to the lack of diligence in seeking the discovery which is the subject of this motion,” “the circumstances of this case d[id] not warrant the ‘drastic remedy’ of preclusion of this discovery”
• “As a general rule, discovery should only be re-opened for good cause, depending on the diligence of the moving party.” (internal citation omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).