Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckerthorn Manufacturing & Supply Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Sudan could “provide a reasoned explanation as to why it does not exercise control over a given entity or set of documents in response to plaintiffs’ discovery request”
• explaining that if party's objections “are not applied with sufficient specificity to enable this Court to evaluate their merits . . . this Court will overrule [the party's] objections in their entirety”
• explaining that if party’s objections “are not applied with sufficient specificity to enable this Court to evaluate their merits . . . this Court will overrule [the party’s] objections in their entirety”
• rejecting the District’s blanket objections on the basis of deliberative process privilege
• “The Court’s overwhelming decision for the plaintiffs on the merits of their motion is sufficient to show that the [defendant]’s objections were not substantially justified.”
• “The Court’s overwhelming decision for the plaintiffs on the merits of their motion is sufficient to show that the District’s objections were not substantially justified.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).