§Why CasetextPricing

Burchfield v. CSX Transportation, Inc. et al

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Quash and for Protective Order

10 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. v. Murray Sheet Metal

    967 F.2d 980 (4th Cir. 1992)   Cited 388 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anticipation of litigation means that the document must have been "prepared because of the prospect of litigation," and not in the "ordinary course of business."

  2. In re California Public Utilities Com'n

    892 F.2d 778 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 158 times
    Holding that Rule 26(b) "on its face, limits its protection to one who is a party . . . to the litigation in which discovery is sought" and noting that the subpoenaed nonparty could seek a protective order under Rule 26(c) "[t]o the extent that disclosure causes hardship to [the nonparty]"

  3. Hoover v. United States Dept. of the Interior

    611 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that an appraisal report by an outside expert constituted an intra-agency document for purposes of Exemption 5

  4. Carnes v. Crete Carrier Corp.

    244 F.R.D. 694 (N.D. Ga. 2007)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that proponent of privilege cannot assert privilege in blanket fashion and holding that the failure to specify documents in privilege log constitutes a waiver of attorney-client privilege for those documents

  5. In re Student Finance Corporation

    MISC. DOCKET NO. 06-MC-69, Case No. 02-11620-JBR (Bankr. D. Del.), Adversary Proceeding No. 04-56414 (Bankr. D. Del) (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006)   Cited 21 times
    In StudentFinance, Serrano, and Bassinger, the non-parties themselves possessed the protected documents and resisted the subpoenas against them.

  6. Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc.

    107 F.R.D. 771 (M.D. Pa. 1985)   Cited 42 times
    Granting protective order to non-party insurance company and assistant claims manager to prohibit defendants from examining documents contained in insurance carrier's investigatory file and preventing them from deposing claims manager, explaining that both the insurance company and the claims manager "may become parties because of the circumstances of the accident"

  7. United States v. Meyer

    398 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1968)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing that the discovery of appraisers' work in a condemnation action was permissible because the appraisers were expert witnesses who were expected to testify at trial

  8. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire

    771 F. Supp. 149 (S.D.W. Va. 1991)   Cited 4 times

    Misc. No. 91-00028-CH. August 16, 1991. Bower and Gardner, New York City, for plaintiff. Stephen J. Schlegel, New York City, for defendant. W. Henry Lawrence, IV, Steptoe Johnson, Clarksburg, W. Va., for Murray Sheet Metal. ORDER HADEN, Chief Judge. Pending is the Defendant's motion to compel deponent Murray Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Murray) to produce documents pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. Murray refused to produce the documents based upon work product and attorney-client privileges. The

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,538 times   650 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  10. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,473 times   104 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"