Ericson v. the Ford Motor Co.

9 Citing cases

  1. Sharp v. Best Buy Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV-00166-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky. Dec. 28, 2015)

    In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476(6th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). In his R&R, the Magistrate Judge found that C.C. did not meet the requirement of Rule 26, in that she did not suffer more than mere embarrassment, and cites Ericson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F.R.D. 92, 94 (N.D. Ark. 1985), for the proposition that she must show unreasonable embarrassment. (R&R 4). C.C. argues, to the contrary, that she need not suffer unreasonable embarrassment in order to secure a protective order.

  2. Wauchop v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.

    138 F.R.D. 539 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1991)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that financial information regarding a defendant is discoverable where a plaintiff has properly asserted a claim for punitive damages

    A claim, such as that made by Domino's, that public disclosure would be harmful to the defendant's reputation, is not sufficient. Ericson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F.R.D. 92 (E.D.Ark.1986) (rejecting request for non-dissemination order concerning all consumer complaints against defendant for " park to reverse" occurrences). Instead, the defendant must specifically identify the potentially embarrassing information, Avirgan v. Hull, 118 F.R.D. 252; Koster v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 93 F.R.D. 471 (S.D.N.Y.1982), and clearly define the serious harm likely to result from public disclosure.

  3. In re MTS Bank

    Case No. 17-21545-MC-WILLIAMS/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Jun. 27, 2018)

    This means that a particular and specific demonstration of fact - rather than conclusory assertions - is needed to sway the fourth Intel factor "[p]arties 'cannot invoke the defense of oppressiveness or unfair burden without detailing the nature and extent thereof." Porter v. Nationscredit Consumer Disc. Co., 2004 WL 1753255, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 8, 2004) (quoting Martin v. Easton Pub. Co., 85 F.R.D. 312, 316 (E.D. Pa. 1980)); see alsoEricson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F.R.D. 92 (E.D. Ark. 1985) (finding that a mere showing of burden and expense is not enough). Because neither party presented an argument suggesting that any discovery requests might be overbroad or unduly burdensome, this factor is neutral in the consideration of MTS's motion.

  4. In re Application of MTS Bank

    Case No. 17-21545-MC-WILLIAMS/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2017)   Cited 2 times
    Applying In re Edelman in its analysis of whether a 1782 applicant was "found" within this district

    In other words, the Non-Parties should have made a particular and specific demonstration of fact rather than relying on simple conclusory assertions because "[p]arties 'cannot invoke the defense of oppressiveness or unfair burden without detailing the nature and extent thereof." Porter v. Nationscredit Consumer Disc. Co., 2004 WL 1753255, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 8, 2004) (quoting Martin v. Easton Pub. Co., 85 F.R.D. 312, 316 (E.D. Pa. 1980)); see also Ericson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F.R.D. 92 (E.D. Ark. 1985) (finding that a mere showing of burden and expense is not enough). Therefore, we find that the final Intel factor weighs in favor of MTS and that the Non-Parties' Motion to quash the subpoenas, with respect to Sky Ocean and the Florida Banks, must be DENIED.

  5. In re Application of MTS Bank

    Case No. 17-21545-MC-WILLIAMS/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Jul. 25, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    In other words, A.K. should have made a particular and specific demonstration of fact rather than relying on simple conclusory assertions because "[p]arties 'cannot invoke the defense of oppressiveness or unfair burden without detailing the nature and extent thereof." Porter v. Nationscredit Consumer Disc. Co., 2004 WL 1753255, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 8, 2004) (quoting Martin v. Easton Pub. Co., 85 F.R.D. 312, 316 (E.D. Pa. 1980)); see also Ericson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F.R.D. 92 (E.D. Ark. 1985) (finding that a mere showing of burden and expense is not enough). Therefore, we find that the final Intel factor weighs in favor of MTS and that A.K.'s Motion to quash the subpoenas must be DENIED.

  6. Perry v. Ethicon, Inc.

    Case No. 4:05CV567GH (E.D. Ark. Oct. 27, 2005)

    See also Deford v. Schmid Products Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 654 (D. Md. 1987) (sharing of information with other litigants "is an appropriate goal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"); Cippollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 113 F. R D. 86, 87 (D.N.J. 1986) (no good cause for concealment of otherwise non-confidential materials from public. "By requiring each plaintiff in every similar action to run the same gauntlet over and over again serves no useful purpose other than to create barriers and discourage litigation"); Ericson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F.R.D. 92, 94 (E.D. Ark. 1985) (denying entry of protective order where attempt to avoid potential for embarrassment or harm. "Much of the increase,[in the number of requests for protective orders] though, must be attributed to a practice among some attorneys to automatically seek protective orders in every case where any potential for embarrassment or harm, no matter how slight, exists.

  7. Ellipsis, Inc. v. Color Works, Inc.

    No. 03-2939-B/V (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 17, 2004)

    The good cause requirement encompasses a standard of reasonableness under which annoyance, embarrassment or other harm is evaluated. Ericson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F.R.D. 92, 94 (E.D. Ark. 1985). The plaintiff, Ellipsis, and TCW do not dispute that a protective order should be entered in this case.

  8. Contratto v. Ethicon, Inc.

    225 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2004)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that ยง 360i(b) was not intended to prohibit discovery of voluntary physician reports

    Absent section 360i(b)(3), defendants conceded during argument, complaints about Intergel would be routinely discoverable, just as complaint information is routinely discoverable in products liability suits involving other devices and products. See,e.g.,Nemir v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 381 F.3d 540, 550 (6th Cir.2004)(seatbelt); Smith v. BIC Corp., 869 F.2d 194, 201 (3d Cir.1989) (disposable butane lighter); Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 156 F.R.D. 45, 55 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (computer keyboard); In re Eli Lilly & Co., Prozac Prod. Liab. Litig., 142 F.R.D. 454, 461 (S.D.Ind.1992) (prescription drug); Ericson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F.R.D. 92, 95 (E.D.Ark.1985) (automobile). The Supreme Court has consistently held that the discovery rules should be accorded a " broad and liberal scope."

  9. Coker v. Duke & Co., Inc.

    177 F.R.D. 682 (M.D. Ala. 1998)   Cited 81 times
    Finding that a party objecting on burdensomeness grounds must "substantiate that position with detailed affidavits or other evidence . . . and cannot rely on simple conclusory assertions"

    A mere showing of burden and expense is not enough. Ericson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F.R.D. 92 (E.D.Ark.1985). In this case, Duke & Co. has not made a sufficient showing to sustain an objection that the requests for production concerning complaints would create an undue burden.