§Why CasetextPricing

Federal Trade Commission v. Whole Foods Market, Inc. et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Protective Order

24 Cited authorities

  1. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,504 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”

  2. United States v. Procter Gamble

    356 U.S. 677 (1958)   Cited 1,678 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although Government suggested dismissal as a sanction for its refusal to comply with a challenged court order, Government could challenge that underlying order in ensuing appeal of dismissal

  3. Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.

    960 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 315 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that good cause includes "protection from misuse of trade secrets by competitors"

  4. U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States

    730 F.2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 260 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court erred when it prohibited access to confidential information based on attorney's status as "in-house" counsel and requiring case-by-case and attorney-by attorney determination

  5. Centurion Industries, Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Associates

    665 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1981)   Cited 266 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no absolute privilege for trade secrets and similar confidential information

  6. Heat & Control, Inc. v. Hester Indus., Inc.

    785 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 170 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellate jurisdiction existed with respect to Northern District of West Virginia order granting a motion to quash a non–party subpoena in connection with a main action pending in the Northern District of California

  7. Am. Standard, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.

    828 F.2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege should be applied to "lawyer-to-client communications that reveal, directly or indirectly, the substance of a confidential communication by the client"

  8. Akzo N.V. v. U.S. International Trade Commission

    808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 144 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the former requirement to prove an injury to the domestic industry, which was “wed[ded] to the particular facts of each case” and was “precisely the type of question which Congress has committed to the expertise of the Commission,” was subject to substantial evidence review

  9. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. the Coca-Cola Co.

    107 F.R.D. 288 (D. Del. 1985)   Cited 95 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the formulae for Coke, New Coke, and Diet Coke, while all trade secrets, should be disclosed to the plaintiff because they had met their burden of demonstrating a need for the formula greater than the company's need for protection of its secrets

  10. F. T. C. v. Exxon Corp.

    636 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "it is very difficult for the human mind to compartmentalize and selectively suppress information once learned, no matter how well-intentioned the effort may be to do so"

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,679 times   657 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Section 46 - Additional powers of Commission

    15 U.S.C. § 46   Cited 178 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Granting power to the F.T.C. to publicize certain information

  13. Section 18a - Premerger notification and waiting period

    15 U.S.C. § 18a   Cited 154 times   107 Legal Analyses
    Exempting from antitrust laws "transactions specifically exempted from the antitrust laws by Federal statute"

  14. Section 4.12 - Disposition of documents submitted to the Commission

    16 C.F.R. § 4.12   Cited 12 times

    (a)Material submitted to the Commission. (1) Any person who has submitted material to the Commission may obtain, on request, the return of material submitted to the Commission which has not been received into evidence: (i) After the close of the proceeding in connection with which the material was submitted; or (ii) When no proceeding in which the material may be used has been commenced within a reasonable time after completion of the examination and analysis of all such material and other information

  15. Section 3.42 - Presiding officials

    16 C.F.R. § 3.42   Cited 11 times

    (a)Who presides. Hearings in adjudicative proceedings shall be presided over by a duly qualified Administrative Law Judge or by the Commission or one or more members of the Commission sitting as Administrative Law Judges; and the term Administrative Law Judge as used in this part means and applies to the Commission or any of its members when so sitting. (b)How assigned. The presiding Administrative Law Judge shall be designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge or, when the Commission or one

  16. Section 3.22 - Motions

    16 C.F.R. § 3.22   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Presentation and disposition. Motions filed under § 4.17 of this chapter shall be directly referred to and ruled on by the Commission. Motions to dismiss filed before the evidentiary hearing (other than motions to dismiss under § 3.26(d) ), motions to strike, and motions for summary decision shall be directly referred to the Commission and shall be ruled on by the Commission unless the Commission in its discretion refers the motion to the Administrative Law Judge. Except as otherwise provided