Legal Opinion
In re Honda American Motor Co.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided August 30, 1996No. MDL 95-1069PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MOTZ, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs have served notices of deposition on Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (“Honda Japan”), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6), naming four individuals, Tetsuo Chino, Takeo Okusa, Yoshide Munekuni and MiehiaH Shinkai, as deponents. Honda Japan has moved to quash these notices and requests a protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e). It makes essentially two arguments in support of its motion. First, assuming that the named individuals are “directors, officers or managing agents” of Honda Japan (thus resulting in Honda Motor’s deposition “through” them), principles of…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District of IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. William H. Webster, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
- In Re Uranium Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1979
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Bank of New York v. Meridien BIAO Bank Tanzania Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Calderon v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.District Court, D. Idaho · 2013
- Telnikoff v. MatusevitchCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enterprises Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
- Libbey Glass, Inc. v. OneidaDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1999
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.