17 Cited authorities

Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (1947) Cited 6,489 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”
United States v. Morton Salt Co.
338 U.S. 632 (1950) Cited 889 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that although corporations do not have a right to privacy that is coextensive with that of individuals, they "may and should" have a right against having unreasonable demands levied on them by the federal government in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment
Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions
353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 437 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena requesting “all documents” relating to certain people, products, and procedures imposed an undue burden
Catholic Conf. v. Abortion Rights Mobilization
487 U.S. 72 (1988) Cited 215 times
Holding that a civil contempt order for refusal to comply with a subpoena would fall if the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
Rivera v. Nibco, Inc.
364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 386 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding magistrate judge's entry of protective order precluding defendant employer from using discovery process to support after-acquired evidence defense proper, noting that "the McKennon Court did not hold that depositions could be conducted for the purpose of uncovering illegal actions."
Dove v. Atlantic Capital Corp.
963 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 251 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a protective order to prevent discovery material obtained by a debtor in a collection action from being used in related litigation in another country in which the debtor claimed that an individual negotiated high risk loans on behalf of debtor
Campbell v. Eastland
307 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 285 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that allowing civil discovery during a criminal investigation would create "an open invitation to [parties] under criminal investigation to subvert the civil rules into a device for obtaining pre-trial discovery against the Government in criminal proceedings"
Houston Bus. Jour. v. Office, Comp., Treas
86 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 103 times
Holding that § 301 does not "authorize a federal agency to withhold documents from a federal court" and opining that regulations having that effect would be invalid
Tiberi v. Cigna Ins. Co.
40 F.3d 110 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 62 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the requesting party's good faith efforts to negotiate reasonable parameters on a subpoena duces tecum were sufficient to prelude an award of sanctions under Ruled 45(c)
In re Remec, Inc. Securities Litigation
Civil No. 04cv1948 JLS (AJB) (S.D. Cal. May. 30, 2008) Cited 29 times
Explaining that a party can move for a protective order under Rule 26 "regarding subpoenas issued to non-parties which seek irrelevant information"
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,817 times 651 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,515 times 104 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"
Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
5 U.S.C. § 552 Cited 12,166 times 556 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party

Koziol v. United States of America

17 Cited authorities

Holding that although corporations do not have a right to privacy that is coextensive with that of individuals, they "may and should" have a right against having unreasonable demands levied on them by the federal government in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment

Holding that a subpoena requesting “all documents” relating to certain people, products, and procedures imposed an undue burden

Holding that a civil contempt order for refusal to comply with a subpoena would fall if the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

Finding magistrate judge's entry of protective order precluding defendant employer from using discovery process to support after-acquired evidence defense proper, noting that "the McKennon Court did not hold that depositions could be conducted for the purpose of uncovering illegal actions."

Holding that allowing civil discovery during a criminal investigation would create "an open invitation to [parties] under criminal investigation to subvert the civil rules into a device for obtaining pre-trial discovery against the Government in criminal proceedings"

Holding that § 301 does not "authorize a federal agency to withhold documents from a federal court" and opining that regulations having that effect would be invalid

Holding that the requesting party's good faith efforts to negotiate reasonable parameters on a subpoena duces tecum were sufficient to prelude an award of sanctions under Ruled 45(c)

Explaining that a party can move for a protective order under Rule 26 "regarding subpoenas issued to non-parties which seek irrelevant information"

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

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"

Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party