20 Cited authorities

  1. Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co.

    471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 772 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court must make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements" and "resolve[] . . . factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement"
  2. Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176

    279 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 553 times
    Finding that plaintiff established good cause for issuing a Rule 45 subpoena to internet service provider to obtain information to identify one of its subscribers, who alleged infringed the plaintiff's copyrights
  3. U.S. v. Dynavac, Inc.

    6 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 161 times
    Holding that grand jury's deliberative process would not be compromised by disclosure of business records
  4. Seijas v. the Republic of Argentina

    606 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 91 times
    Affirming the district court's ruling that although class counsel also represented individual plaintiffs in non-class actions and “all of these plaintiffs [were] theoretically in competition with one another to recover on their judgments,” that “the potential conflicts of interest would threaten the damages phase of the proceedings, not the liability phase” and that it would “revisit the damages issue if necessary, recognizing its continuing obligation to do so”
  5. In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation

    227 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the record in this case contains several strong indications that the market in which the focus stocks traded was efficient. Three facts stand out as particularly probative: first, all the focus stocks were traded on the NASDAQ National Market; second, the focus stocks were traded actively at high volumes throughout the class period; and third, the focus stocks were the subjects of numerous analyst reports and extensive media coverage. Under any conceivable test for market efficiency, these three facts are sufficient to meet plaintiffs' Rule 23 burden."
  6. In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

    264 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants' affirmative defense that certain "class members . . . have either been fully compensated . . . or have released their claims . . . . is insufficient to deny class certification"
  7. In re Oreck Corporationhalo Halo Vacuum and Air Purifiers Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

    282 F.R.D. 486 (C.D. Cal. 2012)   Cited 21 times

    282 F.R.D. 486 (C.D.Cal. 2012) In re ORECK CORPORATIONHALO VACUUM AND AIR PURIFIERS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. Nos. ML 12-2317 CAS (JEMx), CV11-5321-CAS(JEMx), EDCV11-1082-CAS(JEMx), CV11-8725-CAS(JEMx), CV12-949-CAS(JEMx), CV12-950-CAS(JEMx), CV12-951-CAS(JEMx). United States District Court, C.D. California. April 17, 2012 [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Proceedings: (In Chambers:) ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTION AND APPOINTING LEAD INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, Judge. I. INTRODUCTION

  8. N. Atl. Operating Co. v. Evergreen Distribs., LLC

    13-CV-4974 (ERK)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2013)   Cited 10 times

    13-CV-4974 (ERK)(VMS) 2013-10-11 NORTH ATLANTIC OPERATING COMPANY, INC., AND NATIONAL TOBACCO COMPANY, L.P., Plaintiffs, v. EVERGREEN DISTRIBUTORS, LLC; DOUGLAS EZRING; NEW LINE FOOD DISTRIBUTION, INC.; HOOKAH PLUS, INC., d/b/a HOOKAH PLUS; HUSSEIN HACHEM; MANHATTAN WHOLESALERS NY CORP., d/b/a MANHATTAN WHOLESALERS, INC; MAJID RASHIDZADA; MAJID HAROON; 23rd ST. GENERAL MARKET & DELI CORP., d/b/a GENERAL MARKET & DELI; GOURMET FOOD MARKET; NEW STAR TOBACCO, INC., d/b/a NEW STAR TOBACCO; and JOHN DOES

  9. United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers

    280 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1960)   Cited 98 times
    In Interstate Dress, moreover, this court specifically addressed the requirements for disclosure of matters not occurring before the grand jury and noted that "[d]ocuments produced pursuant to a grand jury subpoena remain the property of the person producing them... and their inspection by persons other than the grand jury and the prosecuting attorneys is therefore dependent upon the consent of the owner or upon a court order."
  10. In re Parking Heaters Antitrust Litig.

    310 F.R.D. 54 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    Appointing two firms as co-lead counsel and noting "the inevitable redundancies and inefficiencies attendant to a four-firm leadership structure"
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 96,490 times   665 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,238 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
  13. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,332 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."
  14. Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation

    28 U.S.C. § 1407   Cited 7,077 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts
  15. Section 6 - The Grand Jury

    Fed. R. Crim. P. 6   Cited 1,093 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Limiting extensions to "no more than 6 months, except as otherwise provided by statute"