Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Red Roof Inns Inc x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Other Statutory Actions | Nevada
Motion Compel
MOTION to Compel DEFENDANT PARADISE II LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES by Defendant Paradise II Limited Liability Company. Responses are due by 9/9/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I)(Selert, Whitney) (discovery)
Other Statutory Actions | Massachusetts
Order on Motion to Compel
Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Defendants Red Roof Inns, Inc. and Red Roof Franchising, LLC’s Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff’s Social Media Data, Doc. No. 133 , is DENIED. Plaintiff does not dispute that relevant social-media content is discoverable and has offered to produce such material. The dispute concerns Defendants’ demand for full downloads of Plaintiff’s social-media accounts without subject-matter limitations. The Court finds the requested production broader than permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). Social-media content bearing on Plaintiff’s whereabouts, condition, communications, and claimed damages may be relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. But the potential relevance of such content does not make the entirety of Plaintiff’s social-media accounts discoverable. Defendants’ assertion that they cannot determine in advance what information may prove useful does not justify wholesale production; rather, it highlights the speculative nature and overbreadth of the request. Plaintiff shall instead produce the categories of relevant social-media material identified in Part IV of her opposition, Doc. No. 136 , for the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016, subject to the limitations and protections proposed therein. (SP)
Defendants Red Roof Inns, Inc. and Red Roof Franchising, LLC’s Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff’s Social Media Data, Doc. No. 133 , is DENIED. Plaintiff does not dispute that relevant social-media content is discoverable and has offered to produce such material. The dispute concerns Defendants’ demand for full downloads of Plaintiff’s social-media accounts without subject-matter limitations. The Court finds the requested production broader than permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). Social-media content bearing on Plaintiff’s whereabouts, condition, communications, and claimed damages may be relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. But the potential relevance of such content does not make the entirety of Plaintiff’s social-media accounts discoverable. Defendants’ assertion that they cannot determine in advance what information may prove useful does not justify wholesale production; rather, it highlights the speculative nature and overbreadth of the request. Plaintiff shall instead produce the categories of relevant social-media material identified in Part IV of her opposition, Doc. No. 136 , for the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016, subject to the limitations and protections proposed therein.
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.