Universal Major Elec. Appliances, Inc. v. Braasch

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a mere conclusory statement that a party might tailor its testimony to the statement does not establish good cause” for a protective order under Rule 26(c)
• finding that a “mere conclusory statement that a party might tailor its testimony” to the recording did not establish good cause for a protective order
• noting that the moving party must offer “particular and specific facts” in support of its motion
• noting that Rule 26(c) affords the court the ability to “order a stay of discovery or provide other protections to the moving party, including ordering discovery take place in a particular sequence.”
• finding no good cause for delaying production of plaintiff’s statement to investigators based on mere conclusory statements about potential tailoring of testimony
• discussing cases, and noting that “[c]ourts which routinely allow stays of production of party statements until after deposition are ignoring both the Rule 26(c

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).