23 Cited authorities

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1986) Cited 938 times
Holding that the objecting party must demonstrate that a particularized harm is likely to occur
Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc.
173 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 225 times
Explaining that the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . are incorporated by reference into 28 U.S.C. § 1782"
Va. Dep't of Corr. v. Jordan
921 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2019) Cited 124 times
Holding that compelling Department of Corrections to disclose executiondrug supplier's identity would “impede Virginia's ability to carry out executions by chilling Virginia's current drug supplier, as well as potential future suppliers, from providing drugs for executions”
Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng'g, Inc.
813 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 217 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Federal Circuit law governs the relevance of discovery requests in patent cases when substantive patent law is implicated
In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.
300 F.R.D. 234 (E.D. Pa. 2014) Cited 73 times
Holding that subpoenaed materials were subject to disclosure because they were "clearly of a factual nature that falls outside the protections of Rule 45(d)(B)"
Gerling Intern. Ins. Co. v. C.I.R
839 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1988) Cited 118 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a litigating corporation with control over documents in the physical possession of another corporation may be compelled to produce the documents, even if located abroad
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Kronos Inc.
694 F.3d 351 (3d Cir. 2012) Cited 28 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding no error in providing additional protection to business interests of a third party
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. British Aerospace, Inc.
102 F.R.D. 918 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) Cited 64 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding documents held by British affiliate of defendant in defendant's control where they "relate to the planes that defendant works with every day"
Covey Oil Company v. Continental Oil Company
340 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1965) Cited 113 times
Upholding a protective order that restricted access to sensitive documents to counsel and independent certified public accountants and prohibited use of the materials for competitive purposes
In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.
NO. 06-0638 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2012) Cited 20 times
Holding that the non-party recipient of the contested subpoena had an interest in the antitrust litigation, in part, by virtue of its exclusive distributorship agreement with one of the defendants
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,469 times 650 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,464 times 104 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"

IN RE: NOVARTIS AND PAR ANTITRUST LITIGATION

23 Cited authorities

Holding that the objecting party must demonstrate that a particularized harm is likely to occur

Explaining that the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . are incorporated by reference into 28 U.S.C. § 1782"

Holding that compelling Department of Corrections to disclose executiondrug supplier's identity would “impede Virginia's ability to carry out executions by chilling Virginia's current drug supplier, as well as potential future suppliers, from providing drugs for executions”

Holding that Federal Circuit law governs the relevance of discovery requests in patent cases when substantive patent law is implicated

Holding that subpoenaed materials were subject to disclosure because they were "clearly of a factual nature that falls outside the protections of Rule 45(d)(B)"

Holding a litigating corporation with control over documents in the physical possession of another corporation may be compelled to produce the documents, even if located abroad

Finding no error in providing additional protection to business interests of a third party

Finding documents held by British affiliate of defendant in defendant's control where they "relate to the planes that defendant works with every day"

Upholding a protective order that restricted access to sensitive documents to counsel and independent certified public accountants and prohibited use of the materials for competitive purposes

Holding that the non-party recipient of the contested subpoena had an interest in the antitrust litigation, in part, by virtue of its exclusive distributorship agreement with one of the defendants

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"