§Why CasetextPricing

Tria Beauty, Inc. v. Radiancy, Inc

RESPONSE

17 Cited authorities

  1. Soto v. City of Concord

    162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,205 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a relevant matter is "any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case."

  2. Jack Russell v. American Kennel Club

    407 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a national club and its regional affiliates were incapable of conspiring as separate entities because they were not competitors and maintained an economic unity

  3. F.T.C. v. Figgie Intern., Inc.

    994 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 187 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the portion of the court order that provided for distribution of unclaimed funds to non-profit safety organizations was criminally punitive

  4. Green v. Baca

    219 F.R.D. 485 (C.D. Cal. 2003)   Cited 95 times
    Providing a survey of cases where in limiting the scope of a subpoena, district courts "effectively sustain [] an objection that the requests are vague, ambiguous, or overbroad in part, and overrules in part"

  5. Natural Answers v. Smithkline Beecham

    529 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that a FDUTPA claim premised on the infringement of a trademark or trade dress "rises or falls on the success" of the underlying claims

  6. Rowlin v. Ala. Dept. of Pub. Safety

    200 F.R.D. 459 (M.D. Ala. 2001)   Cited 68 times
    Finding that producing party may elect how to produce its records "provided that the records have not been maintained in bad faith"

  7. Tercica, Inc. v. Insmed Incorporated

    No. C 05-5027 SBA, Docket Nos. 17, 23, 26, 31 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that a company's attendance at a two-day investor conference was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction

  8. HPD Laboratories, Inc. v. Clorox Co.

    202 F.R.D. 410 (D.N.J. 2001)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that state privilege law applies where case is premised exclusively on state law

  9. Watts v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

    No. 2:08-cv-01877 LKK KJN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    No. 2:08-cv-01877 LKK KJN. October 20, 2010 ORDER KENDALL NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge Presently before this court are plaintiff Robert Watts' motions to compel: (1) Responses and Production in Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; (2) Responses and Production in Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set Two; and (3) Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One. The parties appeared before the undersigned for hearing on the motions on October 14

  10. Zynga Game Network Inc. v. Williams

    Case No. CV-10:01022 JF (PVTx) (N.D. Cal. May. 20, 2010)

    Case No. CV-10:01022 JF (PVTx). May 20, 2010 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF ZYNGA'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY [Docket No. 9] PATRICIA TRUMBULL, Magistrate Judge INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Zynga Game Network, Inc. ("Zynga") moves to conduct third party discovery on GoDaddy.com, Inc. ("GoDaddy"), Microsoft Office Live ("Microsoft"), and PayPal, Inc. ("PayPal"). The purpose of the motion is to obtain discovery to identify and locate the defendants Jason Williams

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,303 times   646 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 45,635 times   314 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness