Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), a district court may grant a protective order preventing the production of discovery to protect a party or entity from 'annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Courts review the grant of a protective order for abuse of discretion. Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 899-900 (6th Cir. 2012). 'The abuse-of-discretion standard does not preclude an appellate court's correction of a district court's legal or factual error: 'A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.'' Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., 134 S. Ct. 1744, 1748 n.2, 188 L. Ed. 2d 829 (2014) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1990)). To that end, 'in reviewing a trial court's evidentiary determinations, this court reviews de novo the court's conclusions of law and reviews for clear error the court's factual determinations that underpin its legal conclusions.' United States v. Ganier, 468 F.3d 920, 925 (6th Cir. ...

Register or login to access full content



Professors
Professionals
Students