Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 177 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Gruenbaum v. Werner Enterprises, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gruenbaum v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. Anchor | green | “the proponent of a motion to compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving that the information sought is relevant.” | 62 |
| 2 | Pittman v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. | green | “it is well established that the scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” | 56 |
| 3 | Angelo Fears v. John Kasich | green | “permitted to go fishing and a trial court retains discretion to determine that a discovery request is too broad and oppressive.” | 25 |
| 4 | Sharon Surles, by Next Friend Jayneice Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee | green | “the federal rules of civil procedure instruct district courts to limit discovery where its 'burden or expense . . . outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake i…” | 21 |
| 5 | Gruenbaum v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. | green | “district courts have discretion to limit the scope of discovery where the information sought is overly broad or would prove unduly burdensome to produce.” | 8 |
| 6 | O'Malley v. Naphcare Inc. | green | “the party resisting production has the burden of establishing that the information either is not relevant” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.