§Why CasetextPricing

Intermarine, LLC v. Spliethoff Bevrachtingskantoor, B.V. et al

RESPONSE

10 Cited authorities

  1. Funk v. Stryker Corp.

    631 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 2011)   Cited 844 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding court lacked jurisdiction to consider district court's denial of plaintiff's postjudgment motions because he did not file an amended, or separate, notice of appeal

  2. Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

    112 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (C.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 431 times
    Holding that judicial notice of defendant's website was improper where defendant was not a government body and the purpose of the website was not to provide public information

  3. Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions

    353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 438 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena requesting “all documents” relating to certain people, products, and procedures imposed an undue burden

  4. Moon v. SCP Pool Corp.

    232 F.R.D. 633 (C.D. Cal. 2005)   Cited 239 times
    Finding subpoena imposed undue burden because discovery sought could be obtained from a party in the case

  5. Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao

    418 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2005)   Cited 194 times
    Rejecting air cargo company's claim of injury from U.S. Department of Labor ruling that pilots were subject to prevailing wage requirements because "nothing in the record, beyond a conclusory statement in the affidavit of its Chief Executive Officer," supported "assertion that an increased prevailing wage determination will interfere with its ability to assign pilots according to standard operating procedures and business considerations"

  6. Datel Holdings Ltd v. Microsoft Corp.

    712 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2010)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that Microsoft's Xbox 360 is not in the same market as Nintendo's Wii

  7. Chevron Corp. v. Donziger

    Case No. 12-mc-80237 CRB (NC) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that "[o]wnership of the email addresses gives the [non-party] Doe movants a personal stake in the outcome of this dispute, and therefore standing to quash the subpoenas"

  8. Motise v. Parrish

    297 F. App'x 149 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 12 times

    No. 08-1881. Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 9, 2008. Opinion Filed October 23, 2008. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-00569), District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell. Michael V. Motise, Mahapoc Falls, NY, pro se. Bacardi L. Jackson, Esq., Joe H. Tucker, Jr., Esq., Booth Tucker, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants. Before: McKEE, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges. OPINION PER CURIAM. Michael

  9. Kim v. Nuvasive, Inc.

    Civil No. 11cv1370-DMS (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011)   Cited 6 times
    Quashing demand for expert testimony from a non-party in order to protect expert from being required to provide expert advice or assistance without proper compensation

  10. United States v. Camez

    Case No. 2:12-cr-0004-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Nov. 21, 2013)

    Case No. 2:12-cr-0004-APG-GWF 11-21-2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID CAMEZ, et al., Defendants. JENNIFER A. DORSEY Order Denying [#498] Non-Party Google, Inc.'s Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena In 2011, Google, Inc., produced Gmail communications and other electronically stored records pursuant to a search warrant. Doc. 498-1 at 2. When the Government subpoenaed Google's custodian of records ("COR") to testify at trial, Google responded with a single-page, five-paragraph "Certificate