Legal Opinion
Atwood v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
District Court, D. Nebraska
Decided December 12, 2022No. 8:21-cv-00394Unknown
1Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA LORI ATWOOD, Plaintiff, 8:21CV394 vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; Defendant. Defendant Union Pacific (UPRR) has moved for a protective order, asking the court to strike Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition. (Filing No. 30). UPRR argues: 1) the 30(b)(6) notice seeks attorney client privileged and work product information, and 2) compliance would be duplicative and unduly burdensome because UPRR already answered the contention topics listed in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Herbert v. LandoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- In Re Convergent Technologies Securities LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1985
- Miscellaneous Docket 1 v. Miscellaneous Docket 2Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- Jeff Pavlik v. Cargill, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.