Stein v. Expert Lamp Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• The producing party must adequately and precisely specify for each interrogatory, “the actual documents where information will be found.
• \The [c]ourt normally first becomes involved when a party files a motion to compel.\
• Plaintiffs did not meet the threshold for using Rule 33(d) where it already culled the documents for answers to some or all of the interrogatories, meaning it was not equally or less burdensome for defendants to obtain the information
• “Not one specific document is identified for any specific interrogatory. This attempted use of Rule 33(d) is more in the nature of a document dump than a specification of documents. The action does not comply with the final sentence of Rule 33(d

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).