Legal Opinion
Neale v. Coloplast Corporation
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided September 3, 2020No. 1:18-cv-00274Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA MELANIE NEALE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:18-cv-00274-TRM-SKL ) COLOPLAST CORP., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. 45]. Defendant filed a response in opposition with a supporting affidavit [Doc. 49 & Doc. 50]. Plaintiff did not reply, and this matter is now ripe. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be DENIED WITH LEAVE TO REFILE, if necessary. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), a party that moves for an order compelling a response to a discovery…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sharon Surles, by Next Friend Jayneice Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 1996
- Lohr v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1991
- Rhiel v. Hook (In Re Johnson)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2009