13 Cited authorities

Rickels v. City of S. Bend, Ind.
33 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 1994) Cited 247 times
Affirming district court's order that unrepresented litigant pay reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, under Rule 37
Nidec Corporation v. Victor Co. of Japan
249 F.R.D. 575 (N.D. Cal. 2007) Cited 139 times 3 Legal Analyses
Granting motion to quash subpoena served on third party, explaining that "[t]here is simply no reason to burden nonparties when the documents sought are in possession of the party defendant"
Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng'g, Inc.
813 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 225 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Federal Circuit law governs the relevance of discovery requests in patent cases when substantive patent law is implicated
Williams v. City of Dallas
178 F.R.D. 103 (N.D. Tex. 1998) Cited 114 times
Finding the need to obtain evidence from a third party is heightened where defendants assert qualified immunity and a stay of discovery is in place allowing only limited discovery from them
Cmedia, LLC v. LifeKey Healthcare, LLC
216 F.R.D. 387 (N.D. Tex. 2003) Cited 87 times 1 Legal Analyses
Company in the business of placing advertising in media outlets brought suit for breach of contract against purchaser of advertising bookings. On non-party's motion for protective order, the District Court, Ramirez, United States Magistrate Judge, held that: (1) plaintiff's request to nonparty for production of all documents showing prices charged by television stations or networks for advertising placed by nonparty for defendant, would be allowed as relevant to counterclaim alleging that plaintiff
Echostar Communications Corp. v. News Corp. Ltd.
180 F.R.D. 391 (D. Colo. 1998) Cited 73 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding invalid subpoenas issued from court other than where production was to be made
Orchestrate HR, Inc. v. Trombetta
No. 3:13-cv-2110-P (N.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2014) Cited 19 times
No. 3:13-cv-2110-P 02-27-2014 ORCHESTRATE HR, INC., Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY L. TROMBETTA, ET AL., Defendants. DAVID L. HORAN MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO QUASH District Judge Jorge Solis has referred three discovery motions concerning subpoenas seeking the production of documents from non-parties to the undersigned magistrate judge for determination, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and orders of reference [Dkt. Nos. 67, and 70]: (1) Defendants' Motion to Quash or Modify Plaintiff's Subpoenas
EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Case No.: 12-CV-080082-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2012) Cited 15 times
Case No.: 12-CV-080082-LHK (PSG) 06-01-2012 EON CORPORATION IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., ET AL., Defendants. PAUL S. GREWAL ORDER DENYING THIRD-PARTY KINETO'S WIRELESS, INC.'S MOTION TO QUASH AND GRANTING-IN-PART ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO MODIFY (Re: Docket No. 7) In this patent infringement suit, third-party Kineto Wireless, Inc. ("Kineto") moves to quash and/or to modify a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum. Plaintiff EON Corporation IP Holdings, LLC ("EON") opposes the
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation
267 F. Supp. 2d 738 (S.D. Ohio 2003) Cited 10 times
Case No. MC-3-02-017 March 27, 2003 Thomas Whelley, II, Scott Braum, Lee Freeman, Jr., Attorney for Movant Akey Inc. Michael Shumaker, Attorney for Movant Aventis Cropscience USA. DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING AKEY, INC.'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA (DOC. #1) AND OVERRULING AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE USA INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION FROM AKEY, INC. (DOC. #3); TERMINATION ENTRY WALTER RICE, Chief Judge, District This matter is before the Court on Akey, Inc.'s ("Akey"), Motion to Quash Subpoena, served
In re Stewart Title Company
MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO. H-09-247 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 17, 2009) Cited 2 times
MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO. H-09-247. June 17, 2009 OPINION ORDER MELINDA HARMON, District Judge Pending before the Court are Defendant Alltech, Inc.'s ("Alltech") Emergency Motion to Compel Full and Complete Compliance with Discovery Subpoena (Doc. 2) and non-party Stewart Title Company's ("Stewart Title") Motion to Quash or Modify Discovery Supboena (Doc. 3). For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Compel and GRANTS the Motion to Quash. I. Background Relevant Facts. Alltech
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 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Cited 48,280 times 336 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
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"

Nalco Company v. Turner Designs Inc

13 Cited authorities

Affirming district court's order that unrepresented litigant pay reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, under Rule 37

Granting motion to quash subpoena served on third party, explaining that "[t]here is simply no reason to burden nonparties when the documents sought are in possession of the party defendant"

Holding that Federal Circuit law governs the relevance of discovery requests in patent cases when substantive patent law is implicated

Finding the need to obtain evidence from a third party is heightened where defendants assert qualified immunity and a stay of discovery is in place allowing only limited discovery from them

Finding invalid subpoenas issued from court other than where production was to be made

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

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"