12 Cited authorities

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
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"
Collens v. City of N.Y.
222 F.R.D. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Cited 85 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
Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas
262 F.R.D. 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 63 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"
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
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"
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.
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
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
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,891 times 108 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"
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,384 times 130 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
Section 308 - Personal service upon a natural person
N.Y. CPLR 308 Cited 5,214 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"

Montgomery v. Simon & Schuster et al

12 Cited authorities

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

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"

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

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"

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"

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.

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

Quashing a subpoena left in a mailbox as improperly served under the Federal Rules and unauthorized by the court

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"

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

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"