Woods v. Von Maur, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that even an “unavailing” reason is substantially justified in the Rule 37 context as long as it is not “unreasonable, frivolous or [based in a] completely unsupportable reading of the law”
• finding that a “responding party’s refusal to produce documents on the basis that they are irrelevant can provide substantial justification unless such a position ‘involves an unreasonable, frivolous or completely unsupportable reading of the law’”
• denying motion for fees and costs under Rule 37 where there was substantial justification for refusing discovery, even where the party’s arguments for refusing discovery were unavailing
• refusing to award attorneys’ fees under Rule 37(a) when defendant initially withheld records on relevance grounds because although “[d]efendant’s relevancy argument . . . proved unavailing, it was not without substance”
• noting the “the critical difference between employees contesting the adequacy of past overtime payments actually distributed pursuant to the FWW method[] and employees contesting their past classification as exempt from overtime payments at all”
• noting, in summary judgment context, that a manager’s specific job duties – including his ability to set his own schedule and supervise other employees – are material “factors” to determining whether he may be administrative exempt from the FLSA overtime requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).