White v. City of Tulsa

How courts have described this case

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

• clarifying that “sending unanswered correspondence to opposing counsel demanding discovery be produced by a specific deadline” does not satisfy the duty to confer
• noting that when relevancy of propounded request not apparent, proponent has burden of establishing it
• holding, after “a summary review of the interrogatories and the myriad of subparts attached thereto,” that the defendant exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories permitted
• finding that a single letter between counsel addressing a discovery dispute does not satisfy the duty to confer
• “A single letter between counsel which addresses the discovery dispute ... does not satisfy the duty to confer”
• “A single letter between counsel which addresses the discovery dispute . . . does not satisfy the duty to confer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).