Panatronic Usa, a California General Partnership Lemar Textile Co. v. At&t 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 it is not an abuse of the district court's discretion to refuse to reopen discovery where the movant had \ample opportunity to conduct discovery\ prior to its request to reopen
• stating that it is an abuse of discretion to not reopen discovery only “if the movant can show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment” (quotation omitted)
• stating that it is an abuse of discretion to not reopen discovery only “if the movant can show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment” (quotation omitted)
• setting forth the standard of review, and explaining that a movant must show that they diligently pursued their previous discovery opportunities and additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment
• “A difference in price is not unreasonable if there is a neutral, rational basis underlying [the disparity].”
• “A difference in price is not unreasonable if there is a neutral, rational basis underlying [the disparity].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).