Matter of Lundy v. Annucci

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district courts can limit the scope of discoverable material to ensure that Rule 1 is followed
• noting that a plaintiff may “rarely be successful in proving awareness of falsehood from the mouth of the defendant himself’
• holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could “hardly be doubted” even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition
• stating that evidence of editorial process is essential to proving actual malice with “convincing clarity”
• stating that Rule 26(b)(1) “should be firmly applied” and that “judges should not hesitate to exercise appropriate control over the discovery process”
• stating that the “existence of actual malice may be shown in many ways,” including by circumstantial evidence of “subsequent statements of the defendant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).