State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Miller

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that even if a party subject to a protective order conducted a non-videotaped deposition, \lain appellate court would have difficulty assessing what different impact a videotaped deposition may have had on a jury\
• noting that “ORCP 36 C vests discretion in the trial court to issue an order denying [the discovery requested], but only if the order is justified by the standards set forth in that rule.”
• appeal is generally an adequate remedy for discovery violations because “[m]any pretrial discovery errors do not have systematic implications”
• discovery procedures that exist for systemic rather than case-specific reasons are appropriate for mandamus because of the unlikelihood of demonstrating prejudice in any particular case
• appeal was not a suffi- cient remedy where the trial court had denied the relator’s request to record a deposition via videotape
• appeal was not a suffi- cient remedy where the trial court had denied the relator’s request to record a deposition via videotape

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).