affirming protective order excusing defendants from responding to plaintiff's discovery requests "which exceeded the scope of permissible discovery . . . were a month later than promised" where there was no injury or prejudice to the plaintiff's "discovery activities"
Summary of this case from White v. Caterpillar Logistics Inc.Nos. 93-2500, 94-1164, 94-1176, 94-1177.
Decided November 15, 1995.
D.Md.
Decision Without Published Opinion.
Affirmed in part, Dismissed in part.
affirming protective order excusing defendants from responding to plaintiff's discovery requests "which exceeded the scope of permissible discovery . . . were a month later than promised" where there was no injury or prejudice to the plaintiff's "discovery activities"
Summary of this case from White v. Caterpillar Logistics Inc.affirming protective order of the district court excusing the defendants from responding to untimely discovery requests
Summary of this case from Jefferson v. Biogen IDEC Inc.rejecting habeas petitioner's claim based on the trial court allowing a surprise un-deposed witness to testify where the petitioner made bare assertions with no factual support that his counsel was unable to effectively cross-examine a surprise witness allowed to testify at trial
Summary of this case from Lee v. Russellremanding because ALJ failed to consider whether the claimant rebutted the DOT's definition of her prior relevant work
Summary of this case from King v. AstrueFull title:Hartz and Co., Inc., v. Production Control Information (PCI) Ltd
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Date published: Nov 15, 1995
Thus, while a discovery request might be filed before the discovery deadline, it may be barred as untimely if…
Shapard v. AtteaRather, such a claim cannot accrue until the Plaintiff obtains relief from the underlying criminal…