Legal Opinion
Cleveland v. Garvin
Ho-Chunk Nation Trial Court
Decided January 6, 2009No. CV 08-36Published
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER (Regarding Discovery)
TODD R. MATHA, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
The Court must determine whether to grant the defendants’ motion to compel discovery. The defendants served interrogatories upon several non-parties who subsequently declined to provide timely answers. The Court holds that the defendants must utilize a different discovery method when attempting to elicit information from non-parties.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 5, 2008, the defendants, by and through Legislative Counsel Huma Ahsan, served the Request for Interrogatories & Requests for Documents (hereinafter Discovery Request)…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- The United States v. Hudson and GoodwinSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
- Wilson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- State v. HolmesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- Csc Holdings, Inc. v. Frank P. Redisi, Sr., and Frank P. Redisi, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.