§Why CasetextPricing

Crissen v. Gupta et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re Emergency MOTION to Quash Non-Party Subpoena Directed to Banco Popular North American and for Protective Order

25 Cited authorities

  1. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart

    467 U.S. 20 (1984)   Cited 2,492 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a protective order prohibiting a newspaper from publishing information which it had obtained through discovery procedures did not violate the First Amendment

  2. Reves v. Ernst Young

    507 U.S. 170 (1993)   Cited 1,411 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant "participates" if he "directs" the pattern of racketeering activity

  3. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard

    452 U.S. 89 (1981)   Cited 1,418 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"

  4. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,486 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”

  5. United States v. Miller

    425 U.S. 435 (1976)   Cited 1,121 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government could obtain bank records through a subpoena

  6. Citizens F.N.B., Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

    178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 828 times
    Holding that a judge "may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the record"

  7. Bond v. Utreras

    585 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 273 times
    Holding that "the public has a presumptive right to access discovery materials that are filed with the court, used in a judicial proceeding , or otherwise constitute ‘judicial records,’ " and noting that even discovery documents "used in a court proceeding" which "consequently ... could influence or underpin judicial decision" should be "presumptively open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secret or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality"

  8. Northwestern Memorial Hosp. v. Ashcroft

    362 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 278 times
    Holding that "comity has required us ... to consider with special care the arguments" against compelling the production of medical records that were protected by Illinois's medical records privilege

  9. Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, Ltd.

    30 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 247 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, even when parties agree to the entry of a protective order, they still must show the existence of good cause

  10. U.S. S.E.C. v. Hyatt

    621 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 134 times
    Vacating a contempt order where the district court did not provide the non-party with notice that it would consider the merits of the contempt issue and reasoning that it is prudent for courts to first issue an order compelling compliance with a subpoena

  11. Section 35-45-6-2 - Corrupt business influence

    Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2   Cited 66 times

    A person: (1) who has knowingly or intentionally received any proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a pattern of racketeering activity, and who uses or invests those proceeds or the proceeds derived from them to acquire an interest in property or to establish or to operate an enterprise; (2) who through a pattern of racketeering activity, knowingly or intentionally acquires or maintains, either directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of property or an enterprise; or (3) who is employed