Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
123 results for '* topic:"Discovery"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-12-25
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Construction | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
Judge: Judge Johnson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2022-C-1276
The court responded to the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss defendants' objections to discovery and to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents by limiting the scope of discovery to five years prior to the filing of the complaint. The court refused defendants' request to limit the scope of discovery to incidents of unfair trade practices set forth in the complaint.
Publication Date: 2023-12-18
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Padilla
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 211001400
Defendant appealed the court's order directing him to appear for deposition. The court requested that its order be affirmed where it appeared that defendant's attempts to avoid being deposed were merely part of an ongoing effort to stonewall plaintiffs' completion of discovery.
Publication Date: 2023-10-30
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2019-21724
Plaintiffs appealed the court's order denying their motion for discovery of certain defendants' wealth in connection with a claim for punitive damages. The court concluded that the order was not an appealable collateral order, and that the order reflected an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion where plaintiffs provided no evidence to support a claim for punitive damages.
Publication Date: 2023-03-20
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Non-Profit | Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Carbon County
Judge: Judge Matika
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0801
The court requested that the appellate court affirm the ruling of the trial court granting in part and denying in part a request to compel the production of certain documents in a lawsuit against a condominium association. The court affirmed on the basis that defendant should have been ordered to produce documents in their possession as outlined in 15 Pa.C.S.A. §5508.
Publication Date: 2023-03-06
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Fletman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 01529
Defendants could not shield certain emails from discovery based on the attorney-client privilege as there was no evidence of record to support the contention that the contents of the emails contained information from a client for purposes of obtaining legal advice, or a legal opinion or advice from a lawyer to a client. The court recommended affirmance.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Patrick S. Montoya, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-01-02
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Linhardt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: CV-22-00574
While the rules of civil procedure, including those governing discovery, do not apply to Right-to-Know Law appeals such as this, the court had authority to order certain discovery in order to promote the fair and efficient adjudication of the matter regarding the discoverability of public records. The court granted petitioner's motion to compel in part.
Publication Date: 2022-12-26
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Legal Services | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
Judge: Judge Fletman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 01529
The questions the commonwealth sought to ask defendants' witness regarding sources of information relied upon in making a verification, including the identity of records custodians and persons consulted in verifying information and securing documents, were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-12-12
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Construction
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Kenney
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-3384
Plaintiffs moved for sanctions for discovery abuses in RICO action against defendants over a construction project and court found defendants spoliated evidence, were evasive, obstructionist, showed bad faith and awarded sanctions of an adverse jury instruction, bound defendant to answers provided by one defendant in his deposition and awarded plaintiffs attorney fees and costs. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2022-12-05
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
Judge: Judge Caffrey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2021-C-0506
Plaintiff failed to make a good faith effort to identify her treatment providers and produce related treatment records; therefore, defendants were entitled to recover attorney fees and expenses incurred to secure such information as a sanction. The court granted in part defendants' motion for sanctions.
Publication Date: 2022-10-03
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10619 OF 2021
Plaintiff failed to produce probable cause that his discovery requests would advance his ability to bring any claims against defendants upon which relief could be granted as he lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of a trust and defendants were immune from his proposed claims under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read