Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
128 results for '* topic:"Discovery"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2020-05-25
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Food and Beverage | Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
Judge: Judge Nealon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0423
Defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiff had engaged in any discovery violations. The court denied defendant's motion for sanctions, because a party was not subject to sanctions for failing to produce documents that did not exist.
Publication Date: 2020-05-04
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
Judge: Judge Nealon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0447
While plaintiff was entitled to responses to discovery demands served upon defendants long before the applicable discovery deadline, she could not compel the defendant hospital to answer requests for admissions served long after the deadline had expired. The court granted defendant's motion for a protective order and granted plaintiff's motion to compel in part.
Publication Date: 2020-04-20
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Construction
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Bowes
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0410
The trial court erred in ordering "attorneys' eyes only" disclosure by defendant of unredacted documents subject to claims of attorney-client and work product privilege for purposes of reconsidering redactions ordered upon an in camera review. The appellate court vacated the trial court's disclosure order in part.
Publication Date: 2020-04-06
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Agriculture
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: Justice Baxter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0370
Plaintiff moved to exclude an expert report defendants had not revealed in discovery and court found the balance of the Pennypacker factors weighed strongly in favor of exclusion. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2020-04-06
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Health Care
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Stevens
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0372
Trial court correctly found that appellee's requests for admission as to defendant addiction treatment facility's knowledge of other patient's sex offender status was not privileged and did not require the disclosure of confidential health records because sex offender status was not the type of information protected by the mental health procedures act, did not require exposure of confidential communications in other patient's treatment record and sex offender status was publicly available information. Affirmed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2020-01-20
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Transportation
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
Judge: District Judge Carlson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0033
Plaintiff, the party resisting discovery of its tax returns in this action to recover for damaged property and related loss of income, failed to meet its burden of proving the information in the returns could be obtained from other sources and, thus, that there was no compelling need for discovery of the returns. The court granted defendant's motion to compel discovery.
Publication Date: 2019-11-25
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Donohue
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1377
The commonwealth court erred in concluding that a donor spreadsheet was not a financial record subject to disclosure, the high court held in a decision noting that while records that would disclose the identity of individual donors are generally exempted from disclosure under the Right to Know Law, public access is statutorily required if those records can be characterized as financial records. The high court remanded for further proceedings.
Publication Date: 2019-11-18
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1282
While acknowledging that the toxicology report obtained by police through a search warrant was protected under the Criminal History Record Information Act, the court took the opportunity to note that the purpose of CHRIA, i.e., to protect the privacy rights of individuals as to their criminal history information, was at odds with the purposes of the rules of discovery and evidence. The court granted a motion to quash subpoena.
Publication Date: 2019-11-18
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: State and Local Government | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Dougherty
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1349
In this case of first impression, the high court considered whether either the common law or first amendment confers a qualified right of access to the press to inspect search warrant materials issued in connection with a grand jury investigation and found that no such right exists where the request is made while the grand jury investigation is ongoing. The high court affirmed an order denying access to such materials.
Publication Date: 2019-11-18
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Legal Services | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Bartle
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1364
Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery of attorney communications and work-product relating to the decision to release emails, which plaintiffs contended was done in retaliation for their criticizing state attorney general, and court found defendant had not raised an advice of counsel defense. Motion denied.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read