Tankel v. Seiberling Rubber Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that responding party must prepare the deponent so that he or she can testify about the relevant topics
• finding a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent inadequate where she responded “I don’t know” to numerous questions
• “Without a photographic memory, [the witness] could not reasonably be expected to testify as to the loan numbers ... for sixty-three different loans.”
• “Rule 26(b)(1) entitles parties to broad discovery, permitting discovery that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).