Cummings v. General Motors Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
365 F.3d 944 (10th Cir. 2004)
Relevant factsFree
Cummings (plaintiff) was paralyzed in a car accident and sued GM (defendant) alleging a seat and seatbelt defect; after a jury found for GM based partly on its theory that Cummings had reclined her seat, Cummings discovered videos from an unrelated GM trial that allegedly showed her seat couldn't have been reclined, and she sought relief under Rule 60(b), arguing the videos fell within her prior discovery requests, but the district court denied the motion as untimely and unsupported.
IssueFree
Whether a party is required to automatically produce any document relevant to the disputed facts at issue in the case.
Related cases
Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila542 U.S. 200 (2004)Hedel-Ostrowski v. City of Spearfish679 N.W.2d 491 (2004)Allen v. International Truck and Engine Corp.358 F.3d 469 (2004)DIRECTV, Inc. v. Barrett220 F.R.D. 630 (D. Kan. 2004)Ocean Atlantic Woodland Corp. v. DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc.2004 WL 609326 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2004)