Meyer v. Southern Pacific Lines
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KEYS, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs Rule 36 and 37 Motions to Strike Objections and Compel Answers to Requests to Admit and Interrogatories Directed to Defendant, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a foreign corp., d/b/a Amtrak (hereinafter referred to as “Amtrak”). In response, Amtrak filed a Motion for a Protective Order and a Response to Plaintiffs Rule 36 and 37 Motions. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Rule 36 and 37 Motions are granted, and Amtrak’s Motion for Protective Order is denied.
BACKGROUND
This…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. EasterwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Espinoza v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1995
- Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. ShanklinSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Joseph J. Waymire v. Norfolk and Western Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- Linda Thiele, Guardian of the Person and Estate of Craig Thiele v. Norfolk & Western Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Protection DistrictDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006
- Rubin v. Islamic Republic of IranDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2004
- United Consumers Club, Inc. v. Prime Time Marketing Management Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2010
- Art Akiane LLC v. Art & SoulWorks LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2021
- Blaise v. Transworld Systems Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2022
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.