Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders
437 U.S. 340 (1978) Cited 4,385 times 20 Legal AnalysesHolding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."
Blankenship v. Hearst Corp.
519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 919 timesHolding that the party opposing discovery is "required to carry a heavy burden of showing" why discovery should be denied
Phoenix Solutions Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
254 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Cal. 2008) Cited 88 timesHolding that the intent of the 2006 amendment to Rule 408 was to retain case law finding the rule inapplicable when compromise evidence is offered for another purpose (citing Athey, 234 F.3d 357)
Duran v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
258 F.R.D. 375 (C.D. Cal. 2009) Cited 35 timesFinding that "worksheets, guidelines and policies used to determine plaintiff's benefits and offsets" constitute confidential commercial information and should be produced upon entry of a protective order
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,817 times 651 Legal AnalysesAdopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37