§Why CasetextPricing

Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al

MOTION for Protective Order and Motion to Quash and Objections as to Subpoenaed Documents

21 Cited authorities

  1. Bonner v. City of Prichard

    661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)   Cited 16,097 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that all decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit

  2. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,511 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  3. Sakamoto v. Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd.

    475 U.S. 1081 (1986)   Cited 98 times
    Finding an insufficient showing that retroactive application of 18 U.S.C. § 3143 — the new, stricter standard for granting release — worked an increase in punishment, and noting that "courts are much more critical of slight increases in formal punishment than of substantial shifts in the balance of procedural advantage. . . ."

  4. Williamson v. Moore

    221 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2000)   Cited 180 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that opinion work-product enjoys "almost absolute immunity" from discovery

  5. Windsor v. Martindale

    175 F.R.D. 665 (D. Colo. 1997)   Cited 176 times
    Holding that despite inmate's pro se and in forma pauperis status, no subpoenas shall issue without proof of the inmate's ability "to pay a witness fee"

  6. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation

    89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950)   Cited 507 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the attorney-client privilege does not apply to patent agents

  7. In re Grand Jury Proceedings

    517 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1975)   Cited 156 times
    Stating that identity of client and amount of fees is normally not privileged

  8. Harrison v. Prather

    404 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1968)   Cited 179 times
    Holding that service of subpoena on plaintiff's counsel, as opposed to the plaintiff himself, renders such service a nullity

  9. Federal Trade Commission v. Compagnie De Saint-Gobain-Pont-A-Mousson

    636 F.2d 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 93 times
    Holding the Federal Trade Commission's service by mail of an investigatory subpoena on a French corporation in France to be ineffective

  10. United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

    312 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2004)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that leaving subpoenas in a mail room or with support staff failed the personal service requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,946 times   660 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 69,759 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  13. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,729 times   105 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"

  14. Section 16 - Discovery and Inspection

    Fed. R. Crim. P. 16   Cited 4,224 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting defendant right to inspect all documents, data in government's possession that are "material to preparing the defense"