Legal Opinion

Dayco Products, Inc. v. Walker

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided July 24, 1992No. C-3-91-357PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND COMPLIANCE WITH MAGISTRATE’S ORDER

MERZ, United States Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Compliance with Magistrate’s Order (Doc. # 59). Defendants have filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. # 60) and Plaintiff has replied (Doc. # 61).

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT

In response to Plaintiff’s Reply, Defendants’ seek leave (Doc. # 62) to file a supplemental response; Plaintiff is opposed (Doc. # 63).…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Detection Systems, Inc. v. Pittway Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1982
  2. Snowden v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1991

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In re Heritage Bond LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2004
  2. Alvarez v. LaRoseDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
  3. Goldblum v. University Of CincinnatiDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2020
  4. Goldblum v. University Of CincinnatiDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2020
  5. J&R Passmore, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2023

1 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