Horizon Holdings L.L.C. v. Genmar Holdings Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Carter v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.

    Case No. 16-1350-EFM-GEB (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2018)   Cited 7 times
    Recognizing that failure to confer is a sufficient basis for denying a discovery motion, but exercising discretion to address the motion on the merits

    AKH Co., 2014 WL 2991130, at *9 (citing Berroth, 205 F.R.D. at 589-90) (citing Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572) (other internal citations omitted)). Horizon Holdings, L.L.C. v. Genmar Holdings, Inc., No. 01-2193-JWL, 2002 WL 1822404, at *5 (D. Kan. June 13, 2002) (citing K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss Int'l Corp., 763 F.2d 1148, 1156 (10th Cir.1985) (other internal citations omitted); see also Hale v. Emporia State Univ., No. 16-4182-DDC-TJJ, 2018 WL 1609552, at *4 (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2018) (noting, "federal common law defines fraud using the same elements as Kansas law."). Here, Plaintiff claims, and defense counsel does not deny, Spirit's December 2015 position statement to the NLRB was inaccurate, so Plaintiff may satisfy the first element of fraud.

  2. Ed Tobergte Associates Co. v. Russell Brands, LLC

    259 F.R.D. 550 (D. Kan. 2009)   Cited 18 times

    ). See Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham, No. 06-2122-KHV, 2008 WL 145245, at *2 (D.Kan. Jan.14, 2008) (applying Shelton criteria to motion for protective order to prohibit depositions of plaintiff's counsel); Harris v. Euronet Worldwide, Inc., No. 06-2537-JTM-DWB, 2007 WL 1557415, at *2-3 (D.Kan. May 29, 2007) (applying Shelton criteria to motion for protective order to prevent defendants from deposing plaintiff's counsel); Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. U.S., Civ. A. No. 05-2328-JWL-DJW, 2007 WL 1115198, at *2 (D.Kan. Apr. 13, 2007) (applying Shelton criteria to a motion to quash deposition of defendant's counsel); Horizon Holdings, LLC v. Genmar Holdings, Inc., No. 01-2193-JWL, 2002 WL 1822404 at *2-4 (D.Kan. June 13, 2002) (applying Shelton criteria to prevent deposition of defendant's counsel); Worthington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 01-2106-JWL, 2002 WL 1203753, at *1 (D.Kan. May 17, 2002) (applying Shelton criteria to motion to quash deposition of in-house counsel for defendant); Epling v. UCB Films, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 691, 693 (D.Kan.2001) (applying Shelton criteria to motion for protective order to prevent deposition of in-house counsel for defendant); Simmons Foods, Inc. v. Willis, 191 F.R.D. 625, 630 (D.Kan.2000) (applying Shelton criteria to motion to quash subpoena commanding plaintiff's counsel to appear for deposition); Kelling v. Bridgestone, 153 F.R.D. 170, 171 (D.Kan.1994) (applying Shelton criteria to motion to compel deposition of plaintiff's counsel). But see McGuire v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 08-1072-JTM, 2009 WL 1044945 at *2-3 (D.Kan. Apr.20, 2009) (declining to apply Shelton criteria to defendant's motion for protective order prohibit deposition of its in-house counsel); Parad

  3. Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. U.S.

    CIVIL ACTION No. 05-2328-JWL-DJW (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2007)   Cited 3 times
    Applying Shelton criteria to a motion to quash deposition of defendant's counsel

    The party seeking the attorney's deposition has the burden to establish that each of these three criteria is met.See Rahn v. Junction City Foundry, Inc.,, No. Civ. A. 00-2128-KHV, 2000 WL 1679419, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 3, 2000) (citing and applying Simmons in determining whether to grant a motion to quash a deposition of opposing counsel); Youell v. Grimes, No. 00-2207-JWL, 2001 WL 1273260, at *4 (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2001) (instructing parties to apply the Simmons analysis to issue of deposing opposing counsel); Peppers v. United States Central Credit Union, No. Civ. A. 00-2497-CM, 2001 WL 1155296, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 17, 2001) (quashing a notice of deposition after determining that the party seeking to take the deposition of opposing counsel had not satisfied the Simmons criteria); Horizon Holdings, L.L.C. v. Genmar Holdings, Inc., No. 01-2193-JWL, 2002 WL 1822404, at *2-3 (D. Kan. June 13, 2002) (applying the Simmons criteria to determine whether to grant a motion to quash the notice of deposition issued to opposing counsel).Simmons, 191 F.R.D. at 630 (citing Shelton, 805 F. 2d at 1326).