Mazula v. Delaware & Hudson R.

How courts have described this case

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

• citing, inter 19 alia, Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)
• the party 26 resisting discovery bears “the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections”
• “The party who resists 27 discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”
• “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, 28 and supporting its objections.”
• first citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); then citing Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D.N.J. 1990)
• first citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); then citing Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D.N.J. 1990)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).