Eisenberg v. Gagnon
766 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1985) Cited 579 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding there was "no bar" to named plaintiffs’ appeal of a class certification denial even though they had obtained individual relief on the merits in the form of a default judgment against one defendant and trial victories over others, because "at a minimum" they retained an interest in shifting litigation costs if a class ultimately prevailed
U.S. v. Bergonzi
216 F.R.D. 487 (N.D. Cal. 2003) Cited 132 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that party asserting privilege "must make a prima facie showing" that privilege applies
In re California Public Utilities Com'n
892 F.2d 778 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 158 timesHolding that Rule 26(b) "on its face, limits its protection to one who is a party . . . to the litigation in which discovery is sought" and noting that the subpoenaed nonparty could seek a protective order under Rule 26(c) "[t]o the extent that disclosure causes hardship to [the nonparty]"
Griffith v. Davis
161 F.R.D. 687 (C.D. Cal. 1995) Cited 84 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding statements made during an internal police investigation and contained in a written report were not protected by the attorney-client privilege
Benge v. Superior Court
131 Cal.App.3d 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) Cited 19 timesDocket No. 6841. April 29, 1982. COUNSEL Sroloff Biren, Matthew B.F. Biren and Thomas E. Bruyneel for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Hurlbutt, Clevenger, Long Vortmann, Robert P. Long, Nagel, Nagel Harris, J.J. Nagel, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle Wayte, James H. Barstow, James P. Wagoner, Daniel P. Lyons, Brunn, Lacey Thayer, Charles Brunn, Philip Harvey, Stammer, McKnight, Barnum Bailey, Dean Bailey and Craig M. Mortensen for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION FRANSON, Acting P
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,405 times 647 Legal AnalysesAdopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37