39 Cited authorities

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 5,819 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]hose who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that compelling reasons support secrecy"
Jaffee v. Redmond
518 U.S. 1 (1996) Cited 1,172 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence"
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 3,358 times
Holding that the Phillips exception is "expressly limited to the status of materials . . . attached to a non-dispositive motion"
Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco
951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 869 times
Holding that violation accrues when discriminatory act occurred
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."
Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.
457 A.2d 701 (Del. 1983) Cited 741 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that officers of parent corporation faced conflict of interest when acting as subsidiary directors regarding transaction with parent because officers were dual fiduciaries at the time of the transaction
Joy v. North
692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) Cited 478 times
Holding that “only the most compelling reasons can justify the total foreclosure of public and professional scrutiny” to a court's “basis for the adjudication”
Diversified Indus., Inc., v. Meredith
572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977) Cited 452 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that employee interviews conducted by outside firm relating to claim that corporation had a "slush" fund used to bribe purchasing agents were confidential communications and were protected by attorney-client privilege: while interviews could have been conducted by lay investigators, and accountants could have done audit, "neither would have had the training, skills and background necessary to make the independent analysis and recommendations which the Board felt essential to the future welfare of the corporation."
United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
642 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Cited 400 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal should be permitted because the nonparty appellant "was not the object of the document demand and could therefore not possibly refuse disclosure and undergo a contempt citation as a means to appeal"
Osband v. Woodford
290 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 209 times
Holding that the district court did not err in denying motion for reconsideration of a magistrate's order
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 500,203 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 166,474 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

Middlesex County Retirement System et al v. Semtech Corp. et al

39 Cited authorities

Holding that "[t]hose who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that compelling reasons support secrecy"

Holding that "confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence"

Holding that the Phillips exception is "expressly limited to the status of materials . . . attached to a non-dispositive motion"

Holding that violation accrues when discriminatory act occurred

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 officers of parent corporation faced conflict of interest when acting as subsidiary directors regarding transaction with parent because officers were dual fiduciaries at the time of the transaction

Holding that “only the most compelling reasons can justify the total foreclosure of public and professional scrutiny” to a court's “basis for the adjudication”

Holding that an appeal should be permitted because the nonparty appellant "was not the object of the document demand and could therefore not possibly refuse disclosure and undergo a contempt citation as a means to appeal"

Holding that the district court did not err in denying motion for reconsideration of a magistrate's order

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order