Legal Opinion

Hilt v. SFC Inc.

District Court, D. Kansas

Decided January 17, 1997No. Civil Action No. 96-2047-EEOPublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RUSHFELT, United States Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion To Compel Discovery (doc. 89). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, defendant seeks an order to compel plaintiff to fully answer Interrogatories 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16 and produce all documents responsive to Request for Production 1, 21, and 24. By agreement of the parties the court deems the motion moot to the extent it seeks further answers to Interrogatories 6 and 16. Plaintiff otherwise opposes the motion.

Interrogatory 5 asks: “With respect to each expert witness you intend to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Van Nguyen v. IBP, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1995
  2. Lawrence v. First Kansas Bank & Trust Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1996

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Financial Corp.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2000
  2. McCoo v. Denny's Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2000
  3. A. Farber & Partners Inc. v. GarberDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2006
  4. Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 1999
  5. Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2005

52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API