Legal Opinion
Mitchell v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided August 20, 2003No. CA 01-1866 (RWR/JMF) ECFPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
I previously granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendants’ Discovery Responses. Plaintiff has now moved for attorneys fees.
ANALYSIS
Legal Standard
When a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, the court is obliged to apportion the fees and costs incurred in “relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(4)(C). The party compelled can, however, escape liability by establishing that its resistance to the discovery was substantially justified.
Fed.R.Civ.P…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Ruben Estes v. Dick Smith Ford, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1988
- Athridge v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Mitchell v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- Unigard Security Insurance Company v. Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cobell v. NortonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Murphy v. Kmart Corp.District Court, D. South Dakota · 2009
- United States v. Bill Harbert International Construction, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Cobell v. NortonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Parsi v. DaioleslamDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.