§Why CasetextPricing

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-166

RESPONSE

14 Cited authorities

  1. Cooter Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.

    496 U.S. 384 (1990)   Cited 4,131 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is necessarily an abuse of discretion to apply the wrong legal standard

  2. Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises

    498 U.S. 533 (1991)   Cited 901 times
    Holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 was not a fee-shifting provision because Rule 11 sanctions were not “tied to the outcome of litigation,” instead turning on whether a “specific filing” was well founded, and shifted the costs of a “discrete” portion of the litigation rather than the litigation as a whole

  3. Coughlin v. Rogers

    130 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,100 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims "involv[ing] different legal issues, standards, and procedures" do not involve common factual or legal questions

  4. Mosley v. General Motors Corp.

    497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)   Cited 709 times
    Holding that the defendant's conduct was basic to each plaintiff's recovery and therefore the plaintiffs were properly joined

  5. Doe v. Frank

    951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992)   Cited 369 times
    Denying plaintiff permission to proceed under a pseudonym sought due to his alcoholism

  6. Moore v. N.Y. Cotton Exchange

    270 U.S. 593 (1926)   Cited 703 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a logical relationship does not necessarily follow from the "immediateness of [the occurrences'] connection"

  7. U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.

    56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 152 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Microsoft, we said only that the district court should take into account the risk of unfairness to the opposing party, as well as the "customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings."

  8. In re Sealed Case

    141 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that a district court may not transfer motion to quash subpoena issued to nonparty

  9. Laface Records, LLC v. Does 1 — 38

    5:07-CV-298-BR (E.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 2008)   Cited 47 times
    Ordering the severance of claims against thirty-eight defendants where plaintiff alleged each defendant used the same ISP as well as the same peer-to-peer network to commit the alleged copyright infringement, but there was no assertion that the multiple defendants acted in concert

  10. Donkeyball Movie, LLC v. Does 1-171

    810 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 35 times
    Rejecting argument that lack of personal jurisdiction subjected Doe defendant to undue burden and stating that when a subpoena is issued to a Doe defendant's ISP, the Doe defendant "faces no obligation to produce any information under the subpoena . . .and cannot claim any hardship, let alone undue hardship"

  11. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 35,766 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

  12. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,528 times   105 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"