§Why CasetextPricing

Thomas E. Perez v. Nuzon corporation et al

REPLY in support of APPLICATION for Leave to file Informants' Declarations In Camera 207

11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Sealed Case

    116 F.3d 550 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 425 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the privilege applied where "the documents in question were generated in the course of advising the President in the exercise of his appointment and removal power, a quintessential and nondelegable Presidential power"

  2. Dole v. Local 1942, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

    870 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 97 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 16 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 6 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. Brennan v. Engineered Prods., Inc.

    506 F.2d 299 (8th Cir. 1974)   Cited 40 times
    Denying disclosure where the contested issues were "peculiarly within the defendant's own knowledge" and where the "primary use of the requested statements would be for impeachment purposes"

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Brock v. on Shore Quality Control Specialists

    811 F.2d 282 (5th Cir. 1987)   Cited 18 times
    Noting that the informant "privilege uniformly has been applied in civil cases as well"

  10. Brock v. R.J. Auto Parts and Service, Inc.

    864 F.2d 677 (10th Cir. 1988)   Cited 13 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