Legal Opinion

AETNA INC. v. MEDNAX, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided December 2, 2019No. 2:18-cv-02217Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AETNA INC., ET AL : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, : : v. : : MEDNAX, INC. et al : NO. 18-cv-02217-WB Defendants. : MEMORANDUM CONCERNING DOC. NO. 113 The plaintiffs (collectively, “Aetna”) have filed a motion seeking to compel the defendants (collectively, “Mednax”) to run expanded search terms against additional custodians. Doc. No. 113 (“Pl. Mot.”). Mednax has opposed the motion. Doc. No. 126 (“Def. Opp.”). Aetna has replied. Doc. No. 132 (“Pl. Rep.”). I have considered the parties’ contentions against the factors…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In Re Teleglobe Communications Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
  2. Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1977
  3. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tei Fu CHEN; The Sunrider Corporation, Defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  4. In Re: Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
  5. In Re: Grand Jury v.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API