Legal Opinion
Sivalingam v. Unum Provident Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 1, 2010No. Civil Action 09-4702PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
HARVEY BARTLE III, Chief Judge.
AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2010, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion of defendants Unum Group and Unum Life Insurance Company of America to quash and/or for a protective order pursuant to Rules 26 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED without prejudice to plaintiffs serving a revised Notice of Deposition narrowly tailored to the limited scope of discovery set forth in the accompanying Memorandum.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Arunan Sivalingam, M.D. (“Sivalingam”) brings this action…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Conkright v. FrommertSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Max W. Perry v. Simplicity Engineering, a Division of Lukens General Industries, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Maria H. Pinto v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Pini v. First Unum Life InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
- Reichard v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
- Eppley v. Provident Life & Accident InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Plank v. Devereux FoundationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- Brangman v. AstraZeneca, LPDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.