28 Cited authorities

Nken v. Holder
556 U.S. 418 (2009) Cited 3,259 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"
U.S. v. Hinkson
585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 2,113 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court abuses its discretion only when its ruling is "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record"
Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions
353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 436 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena requesting “all documents” relating to certain people, products, and procedures imposed an undue burden
Boyd v. City of San Francisco
576 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 223 times
Holding that trial court's evidentiary decisions related to admissibility of expert testimony and character evidence were not an abuse of discretion, but admission of rap lyrics found in decedent's car to show animosity toward police was an abuse of discretion
Openmind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39
No. C 11-3311 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) Cited 136 times
Concluding that plaintiff satisfied the first factor by identifying the defendants' IP addresses and by tracing the IP addresses to a point of origin within the State of California
Payne v. Exxon Corp.
121 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 197 times
Holding defendant lacked standing to compel a response to codefendant's discovery request
Perlman v. United States
247 U.S. 7 (1918) Cited 356 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that discovery orders directed at third parties are immediately appealable
Speiser, Krause Madole P.C. v. Ortiz
271 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 84 times
Holding that failure of a litigant to property read or understand the applicable rule does not constitute excusable neglect
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-5
818 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2011) Cited 44 times
Holding that " Doe defendant lacks standing to quash a subpoena on the ground of undue burden when the subpoena is directed to the ISP rather than to him" because the subpoena requires the ISP, and not the Doe Defendant, to produce information
U.S. v. Griffin
440 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding order vitiating marital privilege is conclusive
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,405 times 647 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 38,818 times 316 Legal Analyses
Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,453 times 104 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"
Section 551 - Protection of subscriber privacy
47 U.S.C. § 551 Cited 1,482 times 19 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting disclosure of "personally identifiable information" concerning cable subscriber without consent
Section 2702 - Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records
18 U.S.C. § 2702 Cited 342 times 24 Legal Analyses
Restricting use of Internet subscriber information without consent

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Doe I

28 Cited authorities

Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"

Holding that a district court abuses its discretion only when its ruling is "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record"

Holding that a subpoena requesting “all documents” relating to certain people, products, and procedures imposed an undue burden

Holding that trial court's evidentiary decisions related to admissibility of expert testimony and character evidence were not an abuse of discretion, but admission of rap lyrics found in decedent's car to show animosity toward police was an abuse of discretion

Concluding that plaintiff satisfied the first factor by identifying the defendants' IP addresses and by tracing the IP addresses to a point of origin within the State of California

Holding defendant lacked standing to compel a response to codefendant's discovery request

Holding that discovery orders directed at third parties are immediately appealable

Holding that failure of a litigant to property read or understand the applicable rule does not constitute excusable neglect

Holding that " Doe defendant lacks standing to quash a subpoena on the ground of undue burden when the subpoena is directed to the ISP rather than to him" because the subpoena requires the ISP, and not the Doe Defendant, to produce information

Holding order vitiating marital privilege is conclusive

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

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"

Prohibiting disclosure of "personally identifiable information" concerning cable subscriber without consent

Restricting use of Internet subscriber information without consent