…Rule 26(a)(iii) requires the Plaintiff to provide “a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party—who must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material…
…up the investigation was to prepare for contemplated legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate to order inspection of the documents on the ground that the defendants had not satisfied the burden of proof. The affidavits did not disclose G …
…v. Kent State Univ., No. 5:08 CV 720, 2012 WL 6084630, at **3-4 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2012) ................................................................................................................... 9 Generac Power Sys. v. Kohler Co., 2012 WL 5463913, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 8, 2012) .. 9…
…17, 2024 notices of appeal in this case untimely by several years. Maxwell Br. at 14–18. We are not persuaded. Appellate jurisdiction generally exists only over the “final decisions of the district courts,” 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and…
…18, 2014) .................................4 ii USP Strategies v. London General Holdings Ltd., [2004] EWHC 373 (Ch) ..........................................................................................................5, 6 Waugh v. British Railways Board, …
…Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (“The courts have long recognized the “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”) (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597…
…121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may “be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non‐ frivolous arguments.” Id. at 122. Insofar as a district…
…121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may “be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non‐ frivolous arguments.” Id. at 122. Insofar as a district…
…LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016). In Bernstein, the Second Circuit emphasized the "general right to inspect and copy…judicial records and documents." Id. at 142 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S…
…Maxwell, has failed to comply with Local Rule 26.2(a)(2)(B), which requires that “the general subject matter of the communication” be stated in the privilege log. The “subject matter” is not stated; it does not even indicate…
…“[c]ourts generally apply one of three standards when faced with a request to modify a protective order. The Martindell standard is generally applicable when a government agency seeks modification of a protective order governing discovery in a civil action…
…Yet, with this second batch of documents, Ms. Maxwell offers only the same repackaged generalized arguments, which this Court and the Second Circuit have already rejected as insufficient to support the continued sealing of documents in this matter. Giuffre, 827…
…121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may “be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non‐ frivolous arguments.” Id. at 122. Insofar as a district…
…17, 2024 notices of appeal in this case untimely by several years. Maxwell Br. at 14–18. We are not persuaded. Appellate jurisdiction generally exists only over the “final decisions of the district courts,” 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and…
…158 (1945) (“Moreover, we are not prepared to concede that the general right of inspection of public records enables one in every instance to publish such records broadcast without regard to the truth of defamatory matter contained in them.”). Here…
…Rule 26(a)(iii) requires the Plaintiff to provide “a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party—who must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material…
…nothing to do with privilege logs and, in fact, holds to the contrary: “The permissible scope of discovery from a non-party is generally the same as that applicable to discovery sought from parties.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v…
…nothing to do with privilege logs and, in fact, holds to the contrary: “The permissible scope of discovery from a non-party is generally the same as that applicable to discovery sought from parties.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v…
…court. It holds “that when a court has ruled on an issue, that decision should generally be adhered to by that court in subsequent stages in the same case,” unless “cogent” and “compelling” reasons militate otherwise. United States v. Quintieri…
…support Defendant, and the Court should deny Ms. Maxwell’s motion in its entirety. FACTUAL BACKGROUND While the Defendant alludes generally to “inadequacies” in Ms. Giuffre’s privilege log, she does not specifically discuss those inadequacies in her pleading. For…