Michael A. Nemir, M.D. v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Chrysler Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to justify a protective order, one of Rule 26(c)(1)’s listed harms “must be illustrated with ‘a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements’”
• noting that before admitting expert testimony, the district court must determine that the testimony rests on a reliable foundation
• “The district court’s failure to rule on the motion requires that we remand for consideration anew.”
• “If [the movant’s] unsubstantiated fears of prejudice justified a protective order, such orders would be justified in virtually every case . . . .”
• “If [the movant’s] unsubstantiated fears of prejudice justified a protective order, such orders would be justified in virtually every case. . . .”
• “If [the movant’s] unsubstantiated fears of prejudice justified a protective order, such orders would be justified in virtually every case . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).