Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Dillard's, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Tennessee

Decided May 14, 2008No. 04-2548 D/PPublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

TU M. PHAM, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the court by order of reference is the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by plaintiffs Natasha T. Anderson and Shirelle Humphreys. (D.E.132). In its response in opposition, defendant Dillard’s, Inc. requests that the court enter an order clarifying the Stipulation and Protective Order entered on February 6, 2007, in this case. For the reasons below, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. United Oil Co. v. Parts Associates, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2005
  3. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1999
  4. Miller v. Federal Express Corp.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1999
  5. Allen v. Howmedica LeibingerDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1999

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. In re HaynesUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2017
  2. Averill v. Gleaner Life Insurance SocietyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2009
  3. B.L. v. SchuhmannDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2020
  4. Billiards and Brews, LLC, and Richard Lawhorn v. City of Knoxville, TennesseeDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2026
  5. Bowman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2022

33 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