Legal Opinion
Athridge v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 30, 1998No. CIV.A.96-2708 (HHG/JMF)PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
Introduction
This matter is now before me pursuant to my Order that Aetna1 show cause why it should not pay the expenses, including attorney’s fees, which plaintiffs incurred in filing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Aetna to Produce and Permit Inspection and Copying of Documents Specified in Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents and for Assessment of Expenses Incurred and Attorney Fees which I will hereafter refer to as the “Motion to Compel.”
To put it mildly, this case has generated substantial controversies…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air ForceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
- Athridge v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Alexander v. Federal Bureau of InvestigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2000
- Nesse v. PittmanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2001
- Mitchell v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- Banks v. Office of Senate Sergeant-At-ArmsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Willingham v. AshcroftDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.