§Why CasetextPricing

Kelly Forman, Respondent,v.Mark Henkin, Appellant.

Brief

20 Cited authorities

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,380 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

  2. Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp. v. Chem. Bank

    78 N.Y.2d 371 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 589 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the document at issue was exempt from discovery where "the narration relate[d] and integrate[d] the facts with the law firm's assessment of the client's legal position"

  3. Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4439 (N.Y. 2016)   Cited 132 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parties did not share a legal interest in communications about a commercial matter that they intended to be confidential

  4. Cynthia B. v. Hospital

    60 N.Y.2d 452 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 200 times
    Holding when party moves to compel disclosure of medical records, treating hospital, physician, or other custodian of medical records may request protective order on ground that disclosure might be seriously detrimental to patient's interests regardless of fact that patient, by commencing litigation, waived physician-patient privilege

  5. Hoenig v. Westphal

    52 N.Y.2d 605 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued March 26, 1981 Decided May 5, 1981 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, LEONARD A. WEISS, J. James M. Woolsey, Jr., for appellants. Donald P. Ford, Jr., for respondents. Chief Judge COOKE. Involved on these appeals are questions concerning the effect, operation and interaction of CPLR 3101 and 3121. Specifically, this court is asked to determine whether, in personal injury actions, attending physicians' reports are discoverable when a plaintiff

  6. Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Service

    500 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1987)   Cited 110 times
    Approving decision to quash discovery order on certiorari review because the discovery order would "result in undue invasion of privacy"

  7. Tompkins v. Detroit Metro. Airport

    278 F.R.D. 387 (E.D. Mich. 2012)   Cited 40 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “material posted on a ‘private’ Facebook page, that is accessible to a selected group of recipients but not available for viewing by the general public, is generally not privileged, nor is it protected by common law or civil law notions of privacy”

  8. Patterson v. Turner Constr. Co.

    88 A.D.3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 35 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “postings on plaintiff's online Facebook account, if relevant, are not shielded from discovery merely because plaintiff used the service's privacy settings to restrict access”

  9. Williams v. New York City Housing Authority

    22 A.D.3d 315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses

    6743. October 13, 2005. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered March 2, 2005, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion to compel document production and denied plaintiff's cross motion to compel document production, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deny defendants' motion with respect to plaintiff's tax returns, without prejudice to renewal, and to vacate the denial of that branch of the cross motion seeking production of the individual defendants'

  10. Davenport v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    CASE NO. 3:11-cv-632-J-JBT (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2012)   Cited 23 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Ordering production of Facebook photographs depicting plaintiff since date of alleged accident since plaintiff's physical condition was at issue

  11. 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

  12. Rule 1.280 - GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY

    Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280   Cited 593 times

    (a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and requests for admission. Unless the court orders otherwise and under subdivision (c) of this rule, the frequency of use of these methods is not limited, except as provided