§Why CasetextPricing

National Association of the Deaf et al v. Netflix, Inc.

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Protective Order

11 Cited authorities

  1. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 3,350 times
    Holding that the Phillips exception is "expressly limited to the status of materials . . . attached to a non-dispositive motion"

  2. Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    858 F.2d 775 (1st Cir. 1988)   Cited 286 times
    Holding that public has presumptive right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d) and 26(c) to inspect discovery materials filed with the district court and that "[t]he effect of . . . nonfiling was to deny the public the right it would otherwise have had to inspect freely the discovery materials in this case"

  3. Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc.

    805 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986)   Cited 254 times
    Holding that a district court's order protecting discovery materials from public disclosure with a limited exception for the producers of a particular television program violates other press outlets' First Amendment rights because " court may not selectively exclude news media from access to information otherwise made available for public dissemination"

  4. Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n., Inc.

    399 F.3d 391 (1st Cir. 2005)   Cited 75 times
    Explaining that “we—as federal judges sitting in diversity jurisdiction—‘cannot be expected to create new doctrines expanding state law’ ”

  5. U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.

    165 F.3d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1999)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that Rule 26(c)'s "`good cause' standard . . . is a flexible one that requires an individualized balancing of the many interests that may be present in a particular case"

  6. Dr. Systems, Inc. v. Fujifilm Medical Systems USA

    Civil No. 06cv417 JLS (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2008)   Cited 9 times

    Civil No. 06cv417 JLS (NLS). April 10, 2008 ORDER GRANTING DR SYSTEMS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS AND SIEMENS AG AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS [Doc. No. 263]. NITA STORMES, Magistrate Judge Plaintiff and Counterdefendant DR Systems, Inc. (DR Systems) moves for an order to compel Defendants and Counterclaimants Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. and Siemens AG (collectively, Siemens)

  7. Gerffert Co. v. Dean

    09 CV 266(MKB) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 6, 2012)

    09 CV 266(MKB) 06-06-2012 THE GERFFERT COMPANY, INC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES DEAN, el al., Defendant. Cheryl L. Pollak MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On January 22, 2009, plaintiffs, The Gerffert Company, Inc. and Stephen Panigel (together, "Gerffert" or "plaintiffs"), filed this action against defendants James Dean, Dolores King, William J, Hirten Co. LLC ("Hirten"), HMH Religious Manufacturing Co., Inc., Andrea Bonella, Mario Bonella, Gianfranco Bonella, Fratelli Bonella, s.r.l., and "John Doe" and

  8. Moulay v. Ragingwire Enterprise Solutions, Inc.

    No. 2:09-cv-03213 GEB KJN (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    No. 2:09-cv-03213 GEB KJN. November 4, 2010 ORDER KENDALL NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge Presently before the court are: (1) defendant's motion for a protective order regarding the disclosure of "confidential" documents and information (see Dkt. Nos. 17); and (2) plaintiff's motion to compel the production of documents responsive to certain requests for production served by plaintiff, which also seeks $5,000 in sanctions for defendant's allegedly dilatory conduct in gathering and producing responsive documents

  9. CULP v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC.

    Civil No. 08cv1836 JM (AJB) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009)

    Civil No. 08cv1836 JM (AJB). April 13, 2009 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc No. 17) ANTHONY BATTAGLIA, Magistrate Judge 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition

  10. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,817 times   651 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  11. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,061 times   126 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