§Why CasetextPricing

Oversee.net et al v. Brady

Motion to Quash Subpoena on Non-Party FTI Consulting, Inc., Alternative Motion for Protective Order. Oral Argument requested.

4 Cited authorities

  1. In re Remec, Inc. Securities Litigation

    Civil No. 04cv1948 JLS (AJB) (S.D. Cal. May. 30, 2008)   Cited 29 times
    Explaining that a party can move for a protective order under Rule 26 "regarding subpoenas issued to non-parties which seek irrelevant information"

  2. In re the Marriage of Boon

    100 Or. App. 354 (Or. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 1 times

    D 87-1179; CA A50642 Argued and submitted November 13, 1989 Reversed and remanded January 31, 1990 Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County. Jon Lund, Judge. Ira L. Gottlieb, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Keller, Gottlieb Gorin, Portland. William E. Hensley, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Gevurtz, Menash Hergert, Portland. Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Edmonds, Judge. EDMONDS, J. Reversed

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,988 times   653 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  4. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,544 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"