Legal Opinion
In Re Convergent Technologies Securities Litigation
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 28, 1985No. C-84-20749-RPAPublishedCited by 358 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
WAYNE D. BRAZIL, United States Magistrate.
The principal1 issue in this discovery dispute can be simply framed: when (at which juncture in the pretrial period) should plaintiffs answer “contention”2 interrogatories served by defendants. The parties do not disagree about whether the questions should be answered. The sole question is when.
Counsel already have spent upwards of $40,000 of their clients’ money on this one discovery dispute.3 That fact strikes this court as strong evidence that there has been in this case a major breakdown in what is supposed to be the self-executing system of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Blackie v. BarrackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- United States v. James E. Corr, Iii, and Roger DrayerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- In Re Diasonics Securities LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1984
- Pennaluna & Company, Inc., Benjamin A. Harrison, and Harry F. Magnuson v. Securities and Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by358 opinions
- Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 2015
- United States v. TaylorDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1996
- Jan Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018
- United States ex rel. O'Connell v. Chapman UniversityDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2007
- Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1990
353 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.