23 Cited authorities

  1. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1986)   Cited 780 times
    Holding that the objecting party must demonstrate that a particularized harm is likely to occur
  2. Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc.

    173 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 157 times
    Explaining that the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . are incorporated by reference into 28 U.S.C. § 1782"
  3. Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng'g, Inc.

    813 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 141 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Federal Circuit law governs the relevance of discovery requests in patent cases when substantive patent law is implicated
  4. In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.

    300 F.R.D. 234 (E.D. Pa. 2014)   Cited 45 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)"
  5. Gerling Intern. Ins. Co. v. C.I.R

    839 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 98 times   1 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
  6. Va. Dep't of Corr. v. Jordan

    921 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2019)   Cited 30 times
    Discussing Vermont Agency
  7. Covey Oil Company v. Continental Oil Company

    340 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1965)   Cited 110 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
  8. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Kronos Inc.

    694 F.3d 351 (3d Cir. 2012)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no error in providing additional protection to business interests of a third party
  9. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. British Aerospace, Inc.

    102 F.R.D. 918 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)   Cited 54 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"
  10. In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.

    NO. 06-0638 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2012)   Cited 14 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
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 64,551 times   480 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 11,100 times   62 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"