Standard Lumber Co. v. Butler Ice Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• ordering the defendant to serve a verification that complies with Rule 33(b)(3)’s “under oath” requirement
• invoking Rule 33(d) “generally requires an answering party ‘to point to specific documents, by name or bates number,’ and not pointing the requesting party generally to document productions”
• ordering defendant to serve a verification that complies with Rule 33(b)(3)’s “under oath” requirement
• \[Niscoverable matter must be both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case—which are related but distinct requirements.\
• “[A] responding party cannot . . . redact nonprivileged information from any responsive document because the information is not itself responsive[].”
• “a party cannot produce what it does not have, and so, clearly, the court cannot compel a party to produce non-existent documents”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).