Legal Opinion
Cunningham v. Smithkline Beecham
District Court, N.D. Indiana
Decided February 3, 2009No. 2:07-CV-174PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
ANDREW P. RODOVICH, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Compel Smithkline Beecham to Produce Substantive Responses and Documents to Plaintiffs’ Third Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Sanctions [DE 101] filed by the plaintiffs on May 5, 2008. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED, and the Request for Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Background
The background to this cause of action was described in the orders of June 25, 2008 and October 1, 2008, and is repeated here as…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Kim Patterson v. Avery Dennison CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Kathleen Semien v. Life Insurance Company of North America, a Cigna Company, and Bp Long Term Disability (Ltd) PlanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
- Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Protection DistrictDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006
- Madison Hobley v. Jon Burge, Robert Dwyer, City of Chicago, Appeal Of: Jones DayCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- In re Heparin Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2011
- Gingerich v. City of Elkhart Probation DepartmentDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2011
- Coleman v. American Family Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2011
- Sajda v. BrewtonDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2009
- United Consumers Club, Inc. v. Prime Time Marketing Management Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2010
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.