§Why CasetextPricing

Chevron Corp. v. Donziger

REPLY

10 Cited authorities

  1. Naacp v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

    458 U.S. 886 (1982)   Cited 806 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state common law prohibition on malicious interference with business could not, under the circumstances, be constitutionally applied to a civil rights boycott of white merchants

  2. Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions

    353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 457 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena requesting “all documents” relating to certain people, products, and procedures imposed an undue burden

  3. Gonzales v. Google, Inc.

    234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006)   Cited 258 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that where a court does not have the benefit of involvement with the underlying litigation because its only connection is to supervise discovery ancillary to litigation in another district, it should be especially hesitant to decide what constitutes relevant evidence

  4. Perry v. Schwarzenegger

    591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 120 times
    Holding that mandamus is appropriate to review a discovery order that raises novel and important questions

  5. U.S. ex Rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers

    238 F. Supp. 2d 270 (D.D.C. 2002)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that surreplies are appropriate to “[a]ddress new matters raised in the [party's] Reply to which a party would be otherwise unable to respond”

  6. Compaq Computer Corp. v. Packard Bell Electronics, Inc.

    163 F.R.D. 329 (N.D. Cal. 1995)   Cited 101 times
    Finding misguided the argument that "a non-party, lacks standing to assert non-relevance in seeking to quash a subpoena."

  7. Perry v. Schwarzenegger

    591 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that a declaration by a member of the organization's executive committee stating that disclosure would "drastically alter how [he] communicate[d] in the future" made the "conclusion that important First Amendment interests are implicated by the plaintiffs' discovery request" "self-evident"

  8. Innomed Labs, LLC v. Alza Corp.

    211 F.R.D. 237 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)   Cited 42 times
    Denying motion seeking leave to take second Rule 30(b) deposition of corporate party

  9. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Dolman

    333 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1964)   Cited 116 times
    Holding district court, in granting motion for default judgment, erred by appointing receiver, where "prayer of the complaint" did not seek such relief

  10. Simplex Mfg. Co. v. Chien

    CASE NO. C12-835RAJ (W.D. Wash. Aug. 31, 2012)

    CASE NO. C12-835RAJ 08-31-2012 SIMPLEX MANUFACTURING CO., Movant, v. KEN CHIEN, et al., Respondents. Richard A. Jones HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on the motion of Movant Simplex Manufacturing Co. ("Simplex") to compel Respondents Ken Chien and KChien, LLC to respond to two subpoenas duces tecum, as well as Respondents' cross-motion to quash the subpoena. Dkt. ## 1, 12. For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES Simplex's motion to compel