Legal Opinion
Sanyo Laser Products, Inc. v. Arista Records, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Decided May 20, 2003No. IP01-1649-C Y/KPublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ENTRY ON RECORD COMPANIES’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND SANYO LASER COMPANY’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
BAKER, United States Magistrate Judge.
In December 2000, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) was amended to reflect that parties to litigation “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” As one of the most controversial of the 2000 amendments, the stated purpose of the amendment was to narrow the scope of discovery. Previous to the amendment, a party could obtain discovery into any matter, not privileged, that…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Kim Patterson v. Avery Dennison CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Resolution Trust Corporation, in Its Capacity as Receiver of First Bankers Trust and Savings Association, F.A. v. Southern Union Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Metropolitan Opera Ass'n v. Local 100, Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International UnionDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 2006
- Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc. v. PaasDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2007
- McGrath v. EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2008
- Cunningham v. Smithkline BeechamDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2009
- Mezu v. Morgan State UniversityDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2010
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.