Legal Opinion
Burstein v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided March 8, 1994No. Civ. A. No. 92-12166-PBSPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S [SIC] MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (#47)
COLLINGS, United States Magistrate Judge.
The facts which form the basis of this suit are set forth in some detail in the Court’s earlier memorandum and order. See Bur-stein v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 150 F.R.D. 433 (D.Mass., 1993). Counsel are currently engaging in discovery limited to class action issues. The defendants’ motion to compel seeks an order compelling the plaintiffs to provide the following:
5. All documents provided to or received from any brokerage firm or any investment adviser relating to…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Dura-Bilt Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1981
- Vitiello v. CicconiDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1984
- Moskowitz v. LoppDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1989
- Warren v. Reserve Fund, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
- In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
- Duhaime v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1997
- In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2005
- Bussie v. Allmerica Financial Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.