16 Cited authorities

Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (1947) Cited 6,513 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
727 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 391 times
Holding that detailed product-specific financial information, including costs, sales and profits merited sealing as confidential information
Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions
353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 442 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena requesting “all documents” relating to certain people, products, and procedures imposed an undue burden
In re Electronic Arts
298 F. App'x 568 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 306 times
Holding that "pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms" are trade secrets that is appropriate for sealing
Gonzales v. Google, Inc.
234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 250 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that where a court does not have the benefit of involvement with the underlying litigation because its only connection is to supervise discovery ancillary to litigation in another district, it should be especially hesitant to decide what constitutes relevant evidence
Am. Standard, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.
828 F.2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 146 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the privilege should be applied to "lawyer-to-client communications that reveal, directly or indirectly, the substance of a confidential communication by the client"
Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc. v. Paas
244 F.R.D. 374 (W.D. Ky. 2007) Cited 58 times 1 Legal Analyses
Discussing FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)
Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino
168 F.R.D. 99 (D. Mass. 1996) Cited 71 times
Holding documents sought from parties must be requested through Rule 34
Fisher v. Marubeni Cotton Corp.
526 F.2d 1338 (8th Cir. 1975) Cited 118 times
Finding that Rule 37 does not apply to third-party subpoena duces tecum issued under Rule 45
Morawski v. Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.
No. 3:14-mc-21-D-BN (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2014) Cited 6 times
No. 3:14-mc-21-D-BN 02-24-2014 THEODORE MORAWSKI, as Next Friend for A.M. (A Minor) and OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. FARMERS TEXAS COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants. DAVID L. HORAN MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Non-Parties Kelly Pruitt and Maranda Martin have filed a Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoenas served on each of them to appear for deposition and to produce documents at Jackson Walker, L.L.P.'s Dallas office in a lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 96,086 times 662 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,751 times 105 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,246 times 128 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
Rule 34 - Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Cited 13,252 times 150 Legal Analyses
Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."

Ringelberg v. Vanguard Integrity Professionals -Nevada, Inc. et al

16 Cited authorities

Holding that detailed product-specific financial information, including costs, sales and profits merited sealing as confidential information

Holding that a subpoena requesting “all documents” relating to certain people, products, and procedures imposed an undue burden

Holding that "pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms" are trade secrets that is appropriate for sealing

Finding that where a court does not have the benefit of involvement with the underlying litigation because its only connection is to supervise discovery ancillary to litigation in another district, it should be especially hesitant to decide what constitutes relevant evidence

Holding that the privilege should be applied to "lawyer-to-client communications that reveal, directly or indirectly, the substance of a confidential communication by the client"

Discussing FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)

Holding documents sought from parties must be requested through Rule 34

Finding that Rule 37 does not apply to third-party subpoena duces tecum issued under Rule 45

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."