Superior Production Partnership v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a party “risks losing the right to appeal the underlying issue” if they fail to timely object to a -9- No. 20-3512, Duncan v. Minn. Life Ins. Co. magistrate’s order (citing Stemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856, 866 n.9 (6th Cir. 1997))
• “Conspiracy to monopolize entails proof of concerted activity, but, like the other two § 2 claims, requires an initial identification of the relevant markets.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[I]t would be inappropriate to permit [the party] to sidestep the [magistrate judge’s] order merely by filing a similar motion and forcing the district court to respond anew.”
• “Where, as here, the plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence of illicit collusion, that evidence must “tend[ ] to exclude the possibility that the alleged conspirators acted 38 as a matter of economic theory.”
• “[A]lthough a plaintiff should not be denied access to information necessary to establish her claim, neither may a plaintiff be permitted to ‘go fishing’ and a trial court retains discretion to determine that a discovery request is too broad and oppressive.”
• treating a motion to compel production as non-dispositive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).