107 results for 'cat:"Discovery" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. DeGiusti grants the plaintiff company's motion to compel discovery from certain defendants in this lawsuit concerning "the sale of a small-town valve manufacturing company" and the non-solicitation provisions included in the asset purchase agreement. The defendants, which include a former employee and his new valve company, have a duty to supplement their responses.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: DeGiusti, Filed On: January 5, 2024, Case #: 5:21cv368, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Trade Secrets, discovery, contract
J. Winmill denies the defendant insurance company's request to exclude "highly prejudicial evidence" in this breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit stemming from a fatal car collision. The insurance company argues that "evidence of the underlying accident is far too prejudicial to be outweighed by its limited probative value." However, the motion in limine is too broad "at this stage of litigation."
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Winmill, Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv498, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Insurance, discovery, contract
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly limited the scope of the subpoenas the plaintiff law firm may serve on two nonparty insurers in a dispute over the breach of an of-counsel agreement between two law firms. The subpoenas were overbroad, but the date range of the documents sought by the subpoenas should be slightly expanded. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: 06730, Categories: discovery, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Atkins finds that the trial court should not have granted an injured driver's motion to quash the defendant driver's subpoena to the injured driver's insurer for information related to the case. A review of the insurer's agreements is necessary to determine if the collateral source rule applies and whether the defendant driver has a valid defense against the application of the collateral source rule. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Atkins, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 2023-C-0718, Categories: discovery, contract
J. Major grants a jet charter company's motion for monetary sanctions in a contract dispute brought by a doctor. Despite being ordered to provide discovery and warned that sanctions would be issued if he continued to fail to comply with his discovery obligations, the doctor failed to participate in discovery, pay prior sanctions, file any document, or appear in court as ordered. The doctor and his counsel are ordered to pay $1,140. Furthermore, it is recommended that the district judge issue a dismissal sanction.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Major, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: 3:19cv49, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Sanctions, discovery, contract
J. Bryan finds the lower court improperly ruled when holding a factoring company in contempt of court for not complying with a subpoena, as the discovery did not meet foreign state requirements of North Carolina, where the company is based, instead of Alabama. Reversed.
Court: Alabama Supreme Court, Judge: Bryan, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: SC-2023-0027, Categories: Business Practices, discovery, contract
J. Griggsby partially grants a contractor’s motion to exclude testimony from two experts retained by a manufacturer as well as its cross-motion to exclude testimony from the contractor’s expert in this contract dispute. A report brought by the manufacturer’s expert will not be struck in full, but part of his opinion included a legal conclusion that will be struck. The manufacturer’s president is directed to produce additional information regarding his opinions. The contractor's construction management expert will not be excluded, but must produce additional information regarding disputed flash cards and logs in order to reopen discovery. The court also grants the manufacturer’s motion for sanctions and an insurer's motions for attorney fees; the contractor must pay a total of $30,410 to the firm and $10,347 to the insurer for expenses incurred during the reopened discovery period.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Griggsby, Filed On: December 8, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv2323, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Experts, discovery, contract
J. Cronan grants an insurer's motion for additional discovery in a coverage dispute over damage to the condo association's property purportedly caused by Hurricane Sally in 2020. The insurer has adequately alleged that the association was already in the process of replacing its elevators and roofs before the storm, but then attempted to get insurance coverage by claiming that the storm damaged them. Additional discovery is necessary to see if the association's claim was indeed fraudulent, and the association will not be prejudiced thereby.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Cronan, Filed On: December 1, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv3165, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Fraud, discovery, contract
J. Virden finds the circuit court properly ruled that attorney-client privilege and work product objections to discovery production in a bid dispute were insufficient and waived. The involved companies jointly responded to a request for proposals to replace Nevada's computer-based child support enforcement system as contractor and subcontractor. Nevada did not award a contract, though a year later it issued further requests for proposals. The contractor won this bid without including the subcontractor. The contractor's preliminary statement involving discovery delays is not a sufficient attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine objection. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Virden, Filed On: November 29, 2023, Case #: CV-22-338, Categories: discovery, Privilege, contract
J. Totenberg grants the holding company's motion to exclude testimony, evidence and argument regarding the pizza box companies' document production in a breach of contract action. The pizza box companies failed to authenticate the documents contained in the exhibits and they are therefore inadmissible. The documents also have limited probative value. However, the holding company's motion to exclude testimony, evidence and argument regarding attorney-client privileged communications is denied. The privilege protecting the email communications in the exhibit has been waived in light of the company's failure to invoke the privilege even four years after the communications were disclosed.
Court: USDC Northern District of Georgia, Judge: Totenberg, Filed On: November 17, 2023, Case #: 1:18cv63, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: discovery, contract
J. Deavers denies, in part, the competitor's motion to compel discovery, ruling the auto glass company has provided sufficient responses to interrogatories about potential damages for loss of business, although supplementation from expert witnesses may be required further along in the case. However, the motion to compel will be granted as it pertains to the competitor's request for additional information about the pay scale for glass technicians, which does not cover all of the glass company's 13,000 employees, but rather a small subset that is crucial to the case.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Deavers, Filed On: November 14, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv4558, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Trade Secrets, discovery, contract
J. Yarbrough grants, in part, the baler manufacturing company's motion to compel discovery, ruling the former employee must provide more detailed responses to several interrogatories, including his involvement with the development and production of a baler over which he attempted to assert ownership. However, because the employee and other defendants were granted an extension after initially failing to respond to the first set of discovery requests, the manufacturing company is not entitled to attorney fees related to this motion.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Yarbrough, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv99, NOS: Copyrights - Property Rights, Categories: discovery, Attorney Fees, contract
J. Aiken declines to dismiss the general contractor's complaint alleging that the subcontractor wrongfully submitted project revisions that would substantially increase the amount needed to buy the materials. The parties engaged in extended discovery so there is a substantial likelihood that the general contractor and the subcontractor possess information supporting or undermining the former's claims, so the parties are to schedule a telephonic status conference to discuss the next steps to resolve this case.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Aiken, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 6:22cv1575, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: discovery, contract
J. Lorello finds that the trial court was within its discretion to deny a car owner's motion to supplement discovery in his suit against a mechanic for allegedly faulty work. The owner was not entitled to supplemental discovery because he had failed to comply with a scheduling order and a discovery rule for expert witnesses. However, the trial court erred in awarding the mechanic storage fees since the mechanic failed to present evidence of costs. Vacated in part.
Court: Idaho Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lorello, Filed On: November 1, 2023, Case #: 50220, Categories: discovery, contract
J. Flanagan denies a homeowner and her counsel and appraiser their motions for judgment on the pleadings in a suit they brought against the homeowner’s insurance company over water leak damages following two separate hurricanes. The homeowner sued for over $1 million and denies that it owes the insurance company discovery because the homeowner’s counsel conducted arbitration with the company and should, therefore, be exempt based on North Carolina’s arbitration act. However, this is incorrect because the state does not extend the act to insurance appraisals.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Flanagan, Filed On: October 12, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv42, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, discovery, contract
J. Sykes finds that the lower court properly denied the Venezuelan distributor's request for discovery against the American heavy equipment giant, Caterpillar, in a breach of contract suit filed in Switzerland. The parties' agreed to resolve their disputes in Swiss courts, knowing that Swiss law has more circumscribed discovery procedures. The distributor cannot circumvent that decision now. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Sykes, Filed On: October 10, 2023, Case #: 22-1463, Categories: International Law, discovery, contract
J. Dietz denies an aerospace company's motion to complete the administrative record regarding its decision to award Boeing a contract for arm assemblies because the aerospace company failed to allege bad faith regarding the procurement decision, and discovery was not warranted.
Court: Court of Federal Claims, Judge: Dietz, Filed On: October 2, 2023, Case #: 23-0688, Categories: discovery, contract
J. Lin prohibits the custom broker's expert from offering opinions about the credibility or culpability of lay witnesses regarding the shipping company's complaint that the customs broker's incorrect information to the Food and Drug Administration caused the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to destroy four containers of the shipping company's alcohol wipes shipment. The expert can cure the form of her report so that it does not call into question the credibility of lay witnesses, as without that correction her testimony could improperly persuade the view of the jury.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lin, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1015, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Experts, discovery, contract