Legal Opinion
Yancey v. Hooten
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided May 5, 1998No. Civ. No. 3:97CV1400DJSTPSPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
SMITH, United States Magistrate Judge.
The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110a. Now pending before the court is the plaintiffs motion to compel discovery.1
As a general proposition, the discovery rules contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be construed broadly. A valid discovery request need only “encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Heintz v. JenkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- Diversified Industries, Inc. v. The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of MissouriCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1978
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of BridgeportDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2006
- Gattegno v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLPDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2001
- In re Air Crash Near Clarence CenterDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2011
- Favale v. Roman Catholic DioceseDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2005
- Khan v. Midland Funding LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.