11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Sealed Case

    121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 355 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege's "ultimate purpose is to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions by allowing government officials freedom to debate alternative approaches in private." (citing N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151, 95 S. Ct. 1504, 1516–17, 44 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1975) ) (internal punctuation omitted)
  2. Dole v. Local 1942, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

    870 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 83 times
    Reversing dismissal sanction for refusal to comply with a discovery order because “the district court abused its discretion by compelling discovery” and “such an abuse of discretion will not support a Rule 37(b) dismissal”
  3. Perez v. U.S. Dist. Court (In re Perez)

    749 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 9 times
    Granting mandamus after Mohawk on informants privilege ruling
  4. Solis v. New China Buffet #8, Inc.

    No. 5:10-CV-78 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Jul. 1, 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that "[t]he formal invocation of the privilege . . . need not come until the Government is faced with a motion to compel"
  5. Perez v. El Tequila LLC

    Case No. 12-CV-588-JED-PJC (N.D. Okla. Oct. 20, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Case No. 12-CV-588-JED-PJC 10-20-2014 THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, v. EL TEQUILA LLC, and CARLOS AGUIRRE, Defendants. Paul J. Cleary United States Magistrate Judge OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are the Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery [Dkt. No. 62], and Defendants' Second Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 74]. Problems with discovery have required several Court interventions, see Dkt. Nos. 69, 79, 81, 82, 98; nevertheless, the Court has been advised that after additional briefing

  6. Chao v. Security Credit Systems, Inc.

    08CV267A (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 19, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    08CV267A. June 19, 2009 Decision Order HUGH SCOTT, Magistrate Judge Before the Court is the defendant's motion to compel discovery (Docket No. 14). Background The plaintiff, Elaine Chao, as Secretary of Labor ("Chao"), commenced this action against Security Credit Systems, Inc. and Angelo J. Travale, Jr. (referred to jointly as "SCS"). The complaint alleges that SCS, a debt collection agency, has violated various provisions of the Fair Labor StandardsAct, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., ("FSLA") in that

  7. Wirtz v. Continental Fin. Loan Co. of W. End

    326 F.2d 561 (5th Cir. 1964)   Cited 52 times
    Finding that interrogatory requesting U.S. Secretary of Labor to provide list of witnesses "long before trial," and "is no part of the discovery process before the filing of defensive pleadings" was properly objected to under the work product doctrine
  8. Brennan v. Engineered Prods., Inc.

    506 F.2d 299 (8th Cir. 1974)   Cited 33 times
    Recognizing the distinction between a defendant's need for certain discovery during the discovery phase, as opposed to the pretrial phase
  9. Brock v. on Shore Quality Control Specialists

    811 F.2d 282 (5th Cir. 1987)   Cited 17 times
    Rejecting defendant's proposed distinction between informers" and "those who have knowledge" of facts
  10. Brock v. R.J. Auto Parts and Service, Inc.

    864 F.2d 677 (10th Cir. 1988)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that "the district court erred in requiring the premature identification and designation of trial witnesses" when defendants had not shown substantial need for the information in the discovery stage