12 Cited authorities

Segar v. Smith
738 F.2d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1984) Cited 211 times
Holding that the .05 level of significance is "certainly sufficient to support an inference of discrimination"
Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
186 F.R.D. 78 (D.D.C. 1998) Cited 137 times
Granting motion for leave to file a surreply where the reply included a declaration which was not included in the original motion
West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does
275 F.R.D. 9 (D.D.C. 2011) Cited 87 times
Holding Doe defendants in copyright action do not fall within the "limited class of cases in which anonymous filing is necessary to protect the privacy interests of the putative defendants"
Washington v. Thurgood Marshall Acad.
230 F.R.D. 18 (D.D.C. 2005) Cited 99 times
Finding 29 days is “easily enough time to comply” with subpoenas “for document depositions only”
Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins.
No. C 12-03856 PJH (DMR) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) Cited 25 times
Quashing certain subpoenas, narrowing others, and reminding the parties that "Plaintiffs need not formally re-serve the subpoenas that will go forward at this time"
United States v. Vo
78 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2015) Cited 14 times
Rejecting issuance of Rule 17(c) subpoena where government's justification was merely that the materials sought would be evidence it "could potentially even use in [its] case-in-chief" such a "vague justification . . . makes clear the subpoenas were a general 'fishing expedition' that attempts to use the rule as a discovery device."
McReynolds v. Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc.
349 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) Cited 22 times
Holding that "the wealth of anecdotal evidence, when coupled with the testimony of [plaintiffs' experts], is certainly enough to raise a jury question as to the causal link between [the defendant's] allegedly subjective practices and the race disparity at the managerial level"
Novak v. Capital Management Development Corp.
241 F.R.D. 389 (D.D.C. 2007) Cited 10 times
Concluding there was "no basis" to strike supplemental disclosures made forty-seven and thirty days before the close of discovery where there was no evidence of "gamesmanship"
Albany Molecular Research, Inc. v. Schloemer
274 F.R.D. 22 (D.D.C. 2011) Cited 4 times
Rejecting the argument that “the only party that has standing to quash a Rule 45 subpoena ... is the party subpoenaed” where “the subpoena directly implicates [another's] privilege or rights”
Kress v. Price Waterhouse Coopers
No. CIV S-08-0965 LKK GGH (E.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2012) Cited 1 times
Stating that the defendant "knows the identity of the class members as well as plaintiffs" and "cannot foist the burden of identification of who-worked where, when, off on plaintiffs . . . when [defendant] should have access to the information without making a single query"
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 100,738 times 689 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 17,699 times 113 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"

Little et al v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding that the .05 level of significance is "certainly sufficient to support an inference of discrimination"

Granting motion for leave to file a surreply where the reply included a declaration which was not included in the original motion

Holding Doe defendants in copyright action do not fall within the "limited class of cases in which anonymous filing is necessary to protect the privacy interests of the putative defendants"

Finding 29 days is “easily enough time to comply” with subpoenas “for document depositions only”

Quashing certain subpoenas, narrowing others, and reminding the parties that "Plaintiffs need not formally re-serve the subpoenas that will go forward at this time"

Holding that "the wealth of anecdotal evidence, when coupled with the testimony of [plaintiffs' experts], is certainly enough to raise a jury question as to the causal link between [the defendant's] allegedly subjective practices and the race disparity at the managerial level"

Concluding there was "no basis" to strike supplemental disclosures made forty-seven and thirty days before the close of discovery where there was no evidence of "gamesmanship"

Rejecting the argument that “the only party that has standing to quash a Rule 45 subpoena ... is the party subpoenaed” where “the subpoena directly implicates [another's] privilege or rights”

Stating that the defendant "knows the identity of the class members as well as plaintiffs" and "cannot foist the burden of identification of who-worked where, when, off on plaintiffs . . . when [defendant] should have access to the information without making a single query"

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"