Schlecht v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Tracy v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.

    Civil Action 20-cv-01597-WJM-NYW (D. Colo. Nov. 4, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    . The court declines to sift through the over 380 pages of submitted deposition testimony to ascertain whether any of these transcripts might contain “details about Suncor employee work operations, business interactions between various third-party recyclers, and other confidential and proprietary processes at Suncor's CCR.” Schlecht v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 11-cv-03072-RM-BNB, 2014 WL 4819006, at *2 n.1 (D. Colo. Sept. 29, 2014) (“It is not the Court's obligation to identify factual support or construct legal arguments for” a moving party.). In its Reply, Suncor asserts generally that the depositions may contain information related to “Suncor's refinery operations, refinery processes, maintenance processes, and an extensive investigation of the use of funds.”

  2. Curtis v. Lever UP Inc.

    Civil Action 20-cv-01873-DDD-NYW (D. Colo. Oct. 28, 2021)

    While the court is under no obligation to extensively review the over 1, 200 pages of Subject Documents submitted by Plaintiff to ascertain whether they are clearly distinct from the opinions asserted in Mr. Saylor's expert report, Schlecht v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 11-cv-03072-RM-BNB, 2014 WL 4819006, at *2 (D. Colo. Sept. 29, 2014), the court has reviewed the Subject Documents generally and finds that they appear to be related to the same subject matter contained in Mr. Saylor's expert report, and further concludes that “it is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that [this information] did not inform the opinions in his [Mr. Saylor's] testifying expert report.” Ansell Healthcare, 2017 WL 6328149, at *3.