Amax Coal Co. v. Adams

9 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co.

    3:20-cv-00053-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind. Jul. 22, 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Applying Amax Coal

    In RFP 10, the Smiths request all documents supporting any offers Metropolitan made to them. Metropolitan originally objected to these discovery requests on grounds of privilege, work product, and undue burden citing Amax Coal v. Adams, 597 N.E.2d 350 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992) in support. a. Requests for Facts

  2. Innovative Water Consulting, LLC v. SA Hosp. Acquisition Grp.

    1:22-cv-00500-TWP-MKK (S.D. Ind. Nov. 6, 2024)

    Feigen is correct that IWC only requested documents related to SCH's affirmative defenses, and not Feigen's affirmative defenses. The Court further agrees that IWC's other request is objectionable because it seeks documents protected by the work product doctrine, as explained by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Amax Coal Co. v. Adams, 597 N.E.2d 350, 355 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992). In Amax Coal, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to produce documents in response to similar discovery requests, which sought "all documents," documents "containing, discussing or relating to facts or other information" supporting the defendant's denials of allegations in the complaint or supporting its defenses.

  3. Gaston v. Hazeltine

    3:21-CV-896-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind. Sep. 29, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    As a result, the factual and legal bases for claims and defenses sought through contention interrogatories, like Kedron's Interrogatory No. 11, must usually be produced so long as the requests are not abusive. See Amax Coal Co. v. Adams, 597 N.E.2d 350, 353-54 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992). Grange Insurance is thus reminded to include any factual statements responsive to Interrogatory No. 11, to the extent that they have not yet been produced, in their supplemental discovery responses produced pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) and this Court's Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order [DE 18] through trial.

  4. E. Chicago v. E. Chicago

    878 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 9 times

    Finally, it accuses the Foundations of a "pejorative-filled rejoinder," ( id. at 41), to one of East Chicago's arguments. We direct East Chicago's counsel to our statement in Amax Coal Co. v. Adams, 597 N.E.2d 350, 352 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992), trans. denied, where we said: We must first discuss the quality of briefing by counsel in this appeal.

  5. In re H.M.C

    876 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 11 times

    Mother's "petulant grousing" is "akin to static on a radio broadcast." Amax Coal Co. v. Adams, 597 N.E.2d 350, 352 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992), trans. denied.

  6. Walker v. Cuppett

    808 N.E.2d 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 35 times
    Stating that "[o]pinions and diagnoses contained in medical records, although they constitute an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 803, still must meet the requirements for expert opinions set forth in Indiana Evidence Rule 702 in order to be admitted into evidence"

    In fact, the sequence and timing of discovery has been left to the almost unlimited discretion of the trial court. Amax Coal Co. v. Adams, 597 N.E.2d 350, 353 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), trans. denied.

  7. County Line Tow. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

    714 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Rather, the Appellants want the Court of Appeals to permit them to play the `heads I win, tails you lose' game," id. at 29. We direct the attention of Cincinnati's counsel to our statement in Amax Coal Co. v. Adams, 597 N.E.2d 350, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992): We commend counsel for County Line for his restraint in declining to respond in kind to Cincinnati's remarks in his reply brief.

  8. Natural Resources Com'n v. Amax Coal Co.

    603 N.E.2d 1349 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    The parties raise numerous issues and sub issues for our review which we summarize as whether I-SMCRA preserves Indiana water rights law and denies the Department the authority to affect such rights in any way. In addition, as did this court in AMAX Coal Company v. Adams et al (1992), Ind. App., 597 N.E.2d 350, we raise sua sponte the question of whether cross-condemnation by counsel for AMAX and Jarrett is appropriate material for appellate briefs. ISSUE I. THE BRIEFING WAR

  9. Popovich v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue

    7 N.E.3d 406 (Ind. T.C. 2014)   Cited 10 times
    Granting in part and denying in part Popovich's first motion to compel and the Department's motion for protective order

    Finally, the Department objects to Popovich's discovery requests on the basis that one or more of them are oppressive, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome; are compound questions or not properly limited; seek legal conclusions or information within Popovich's rather than the Department's possession; and pose hypothetical questions. Once again, the Department presents blanket objections with no explanation why the requests have these characteristics and without citing to any authority. See, e.g., Amax Coal Co. v. Adams, 597 N.E.2d 350, 355 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (explaining that discovery requests seeking “all facts” or “all documents” regarding a particular issue are not necessarily vague or ambiguous), trans. denied; Bolen v. Mid–Continent Refrigerator Co., 411 N.E.2d 1255, 1261 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (stating that “[a]n interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it calls for a[ ] ... legal conclusion” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, the Court finds that none of these objections preclude disclosure.