providing that "in evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court ‘may not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence,’ " and instead, must believe the non-movant's evidence while drawing all justifiable inferences in his favor
Summary of this case from United States v. GoldsmithNo. 99-55505.
April 18, 2000.
C.D.Cal., 16 F.Supp.2d 1164.
Affirmed
providing that "in evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court ‘may not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence,’ " and instead, must believe the non-movant's evidence while drawing all justifiable inferences in his favor
Summary of this case from United States v. Goldsmithstating "the federal common law of privileges governs both federal and pendent state law claims in federal question cases"
Summary of this case from Dagdagan v. City of VallejoFull title:Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plans
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Date published: Apr 18, 2000
See, e.g.,In re RDM Sports Group, Inc., 277 B.R. 415, 430 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2002) (" This Court agrees with the…
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.In determining whether a settlement privilege is appropriate, if not established, the court considers the…