Carter Products, Inc. v. Eversharp, Inc., and Thrifty Drug Stores Co., Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
KILEY, Circuit Judge.
The district court denied a motion of Eversharp, Inc. and Thrifty Drug Stores Co., Inc. to compel Lerner to answer specific questions at deposition under Rule 30, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to answer all relevant questions, and to produce for inspection documents sought by a subpoena duces tecum. 1 This discovery was sought for use in defense of a patent infringement suit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 2 Eversharp and Thrifty Drug Stores (hereinafter “appellants”) have appealed, and Lerner, the witness and…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Cobbledick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Alexander v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. City of Burlington, VermontCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
- Jack S. MacHin v. Eugene M. Zuckert, Secretary of the Air ForceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1963
- Covey Oil Co. v. Continental Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1965
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Michael D. Van Etten v. Bridgestone/Firestone, IncCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001
- Republic Gear Company v. Borg-Warner CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Premium Service Corporation v. The Sperry & Hutchinson Company, George A. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- American Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc. And Howmedica, Inc., and Biomet, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- American Express Warehousing, Ltd. v. Transamerica Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.