United States ex rel. Ward v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• granting document request in part because it was “relevant to defendants’ anticipated defense . . . that they exercised due diligence in fact checking [third-party source’s] story” about plaintiff
• “[T]he party or person resisting discovery . . . bears the burden of persuasion.”
• “[T]he party or person resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel discovery, bears the burden of persuasion.” (quoting Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 243 (M.D.N.C. 2010))
• “[T]he party or person resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel discovery, bears the burden of persuasion.” (quoting Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 243 (M.D.N.C. 2010))
• “‘[T]he party or person resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel discovery, bears the burden of persuasion.”” (quoting Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 243 (M.D.N.C. 2010))
• “{T]he party or person resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel discovery, bears the burden of persuasion.” (quoting Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 243 (M.D.N.C. 2010))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).