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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(C) when a court grants in part and denies in part a motion to compel, the court can “apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.” Whether to impose sanctions lies within the court's discretion. Barnes v. Akal Sec. Inc., No. 04-1350, 2005 WL 3359717, at *6-7, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33262, at *21 (D.Kan. December 9, 2005)(citing Nat'l Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976)). The court “must consider on a case-by-case basis whether the party's failure was substantially justified or whether other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions inappropriate.” Id. (citing Starlight Int'l, Inc. v. Herlihy, 186 F.R.D. 626, 646 (D.Kan.1999)). In deciding whether to grant sanctions based on Rule 37(a)(4)(C), the court in Mackey v. IBP, Inc., found that “justice requires that each party be responsible for its own costs and expenses incurred upon the motion [to compel]” because “both parties took legitimate positions on the motion [to compel].” Mackey v. IBP Inc., 167 F.R.D. 186, 207 (D.Kan.1996).  See also Lawrence-Leiter & Co. v. Paulson, No. 96-2535, ...

Register or login to access full content