Milliken & Co. v. Bank of China

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “the third factor only addresses the physical location of the documents”
• awarding attorney’s fees where “[t]he [defendant] repeatedly requested extensions of time to respond to [the plaintiff]’s requests, yet ultimately failed to do so.”
• applying Federal Rules where “[e]ach of the relevant factors, with the exception of the location of the information, favors discovery without resort to the Hague Evidence Convention.”
• applying the Rules where “[e]ach of the relevant factors, with the exception of the location of the information, favors discovery without resort to the Hague Evidence Convention”
• “[T]he requests here are narrowly tailored, and this factor therefore supports Milliken’s position” that the Federal Rules should be applied
• “In light of this comity consideration, I am reluctant to deny the Bank’s motion on the basis of forfeiture alone. I will therefore proceed to analyze it on the merits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).