Morrison v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “when a party notices a deposition to be recorded by nonstenographic means, or by both stenographic and nonstenographic means, and no objection is raised at that time by the other party to the method of recordation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c
• holding that “when a party notices a deposition to be recorded by nonstenographic means, or by both stenographic and non-stenographic means, and no objection is raised at that time by the other party to the method of recordation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c
• holding that “when a party notices a deposition to be recorded by nonstenographic means, or by both stenographic and nonstenographic means, and no objection is raised at that time by the other party to the method of recordation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c
• explaining that video deposition costs are recoverable under section 1920
• reversing district court award of over $3,300 in expert witness fees and instructing the district court to reduce taxable costs for each witness to $40 per day
• reversing a district court’s award of costs “for playback of video depositions at trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).