Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSD+
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Start your free 14-day trial today. Read as much content as you want during your trial, and you can cancel any time and keep access for the full 14 days.
- 2018 WL 4689112
Contributed by Pilea
This case demonstrates the relative importance of the six factors in the proportionality balancing test for discovery.
Issue
Should the 30(b)(6) motion for discovery on discovery and the request for information regarding the prior claims be granted?
Conclusion
No and no. Defendant's motions for protective orders are granted.
LSD+ exclusive
Rule
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Analysis
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
Facts
- When Alley inflated his snowblower tire, the rim exploded & injured his hand.
- He filed a products liability action against MTD.
- Alley sought all documents from any prior lawsuits re the same model, including expert reports, deposition transcripts & discovery responses, and also filed a 30(b)(6) motion seeking 9 topics re methods for storing /creating electronic info.
- MTD filed a motion for protective order on basis that: (1) 30(b)(6) motion was improper “discovery on discovery”, (2) requests were not proportional to needs of case under R 26(b).
LSD+ exclusive
Holding
- Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
- A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
- A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
- An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
- jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
- proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
- jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
- jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
- Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
- Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
- Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.
Join LSD+
Energize your law school studying with LSD+ for only $19 per month. Join over 40,000 applicants who have used LSD to crush admissions and empower yourself to crush 1L and beyond. With LSD+, you’ll get immediate access to many nice things including:
- Full-access to over 50,000 case briefs
- LSD’s DeepDive tool to read the case at different levels of summarization
- Highlight-to-define to get easy to understand definitions in real time as you study
- Social learning with LSD community case high points
- Instantly brief over 6,000,000 cases with LSD’s cutting edge AI briefing tool
- 14-day free trial