12 Cited authorities

  1. Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp.

    169 F.R.D. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)   Cited 232 times
    Holding that subpoena that sought discovery of "virtually every document" relating to the defendant that was generated or maintained by a non-party witness during the past ten years was overbroad and had to be quashed or modified
  2. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

    228 F.R.D. 111 (D. Conn. 2005)   Cited 112 times
    Holding that, even in light of the special weight, "the sheer volume of documents would be no reason, in and of itself, to quash the subpoenas if there were no other reasonable way for [defendant] to obtain the information it seeks"
  3. Collens v. City of N.Y.

    222 F.R.D. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 84 times
    Finding that having the officer swear to an affidavit declaring her net worth was a more efficient and less intrusive means for obtaining financial discovery
  4. Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas

    262 F.R.D. 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 61 times
    Rejecting argument that trial subpoena posed undue burden; "parties who have been served properly under Rule 45 cannot demand that their depositions be used in lieu of live trial testimony"
  5. Kingsway Financial Svc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP

    03 Civ. 5560 (RMB)(HBP) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2008)   Cited 53 times

    03 Civ. 5560 (RMB)(HBP). October 2, 2008 OPINION AND ORDER HENRY PITMAN, Magistrate Judge I. Introduction Defendant John A. Dore (the "Movant") moves to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued by plaintiffs American Country Holdings, Inc. ("ACHI") and Kingsway Financial Services, Inc. ("Kingsway") to non-party Great American Insurance Group ("Great American"), ACHI's insurance provider. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to quash is granted in part and denied in part. Great American and Dore

  6. United States v. International Business Machines Corp.

    83 F.R.D. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)   Cited 123 times
    Denying motion to quash records subpoena for information about which the defendant's chairman intended to testify to establish the government plaintiff's "clear" need given that the documents likely contained information "from which cross-examination may be fashioned"
  7. Cohen v. City of New York

    255 F.R.D. 110 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 20 times
    In Cohen, a case which Reliance cites to support its position, the court identified sets of circumstances in which the privacy of sensitive business information is of concern in response to a subpoena.
  8. Leser v. U.S. Bank National Association

    09-CV-2362 (KAM) (ALC) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Approving “nail and mail” service, pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R § 308, as a means of personal service under then-Local Civil Rule 83.9
  9. Haber v. ASN 50th St., LLC

    272 F.R.D. 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Quashing a subpoena left in a mailbox as improperly served under the Federal Rules and unauthorized by the court
  10. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,724 times   105 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"
  11. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,221 times   128 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
  12. Section 308 - Personal service upon a natural person

    N.Y. CPLR 308   Cited 5,183 times
    Providing for "nail and mail" service and for service "in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs, if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of this section"