§Why CasetextPricing

Twardy, et al v. Priceline.com, Inc, et al

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION for Protective Order Regarding the Subpoena Issued to Goldman Sachs & Co. Seeking Personal Financial Information

13 Cited authorities

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,503 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

  2. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,575 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  3. United States v. Miller

    425 U.S. 435 (1976)   Cited 1,138 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government could obtain bank records through a subpoena

  4. United States v. White

    401 U.S. 745 (1971)   Cited 932 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conversation recorded on consent of one participant did not violate other participant's Fourth Amendment rights

  5. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Barron's

    428 F. Supp. 200 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)   Cited 40 times

    No. 76 Civ. 4094-CLB. March 16, 1977. Willkie, Farr Gallagher by Robert E. Bartkus, Michael B. Targoff, New York City, for plaintiff. Patterson, Belknap Webb, New York City, for Dow Jones by Robert D. Sack, W. Peter Burns, New York City. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim Ballon, New York City, for Abraham Briloff by Paul Martinson, A. Brian Savin, New York City, for defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BRIEANT, District Judge. This discovery dispute presents unusual circumstances. Plaintiff Reliance Insurance

  6. Chazin v. Lieberman

    129 F.R.D. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that a party has standing to challenge subpoenas directed at nonparty financial institutions

  7. Allnet Communication Services v. F.C.C

    800 F. Supp. 984 (D.D.C. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that a requester's unsubstantiated challenge to Exemption 4 withholding was "vague hearsay" that "cannot raise a genuine issue as to a material fact"

  8. Chem. Bank v. Dana

    149 F.R.D. 11 (D. Conn. 1993)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that "compliance with the subpoena might infringe on certain privacy rights, in that [plaintiff] would have easy access to [defendant]'s unrelated financial and business dealings"

  9. Vogue Instrument Corp. v. Lem Instruments Corp.

    41 F.R.D. 346 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)   Cited 14 times
    In Vogue Instrument Corp. v. Lem Instruments Corp., 41 F.R.D. 346 (S.D.N.Y.1967), plaintiff noticed the deposition of a non-party witness and in connection therewith procured a subpoena duces tecum pursuant to Rule 45(b) which required various documents to be produced for use at the deposition.

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 99,217 times   679 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  11. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 17,403 times   112 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"

  12. Rule 2 - One Form of Action

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 2   Cited 715 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing for "one form of action to be known as 'civil action,'" in lieu of discretely labeled actions at law and suits in equity

  13. Section 1829b - Retention of records by insured depository institutions

    12 U.S.C. § 1829b   Cited 63 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring banks to prepare and maintain records of customers' transactions