Legal Opinion
Scott v. Arex, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided January 23, 1989No. Civ. No. N 85-508(WWE)PublishedCited by 54 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
THOMAS P. SMITH, United States Magistrate.
The plaintiff is a 68 year old man who alleges that he was fired in violation of various federal statutes and the common law.1 By this Rule 37 motion he seeks the court’s assistance in obtaining basic discovery from the defendant Miller, an owner and officer of the corporate defendant (hereafter Arex). To the extent plaintiff seeks an order compelling compliance with his outstanding discovery requests, the motion is granted. In the event of non-compliance within 30 days of this order, plaintiff is free to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Richard Davis v. Robert H. FendlerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Searock, D/B/A Allied Marine v. Greg Stripling, Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Amf Inc., D/B/A Hatteras Yachts and Aetna Insurance Co., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Zaist v. OlsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Detection Systems, Inc. v. Pittway Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1982
- M.L.C., Inc. v. North American Philips Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Bank of New York v. Meridien BIAO Bank Tanzania Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Poole v. Textron, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2000
- Golden Trade v. Lee Apparel Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Hancock v. ShookSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.