46 Cited authorities

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders
437 U.S. 340 (1978) Cited 4,385 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."
Preiser v. Newkirk
422 U.S. 395 (1975) Cited 1,838 times
Holding that "a federal court has neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them"
Phillips v. General Motors Corp.
307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,233 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the party or intervenor “seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted”
Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions
406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 747 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding a single retailer and a single customer insufficient to establish likelihood of confusion based on actual confusion
Rivera v. Nibco, Inc.
364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 386 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding magistrate judge's entry of protective order precluding defendant employer from using discovery process to support after-acquired evidence defense proper, noting that "the McKennon Court did not hold that depositions could be conducted for the purpose of uncovering illegal actions."
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC
217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 232 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding additional discovery was mandated where plaintiff knew that defendant's production was insufficient because plaintiff herself produced numerous responsive documents
Mercator Corp. v. United States
318 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 224 times
Holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine
United States v. Jones
696 F.2d 1069 (4th Cir. 1982) Cited 271 times
Holding that the burden is on the proponent of the privilege to demonstrate "not only that an attorney-client relationship existed, but also that the particular communications at issue are privileged and that the privilege was not waived."
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles
60 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (S.D. Cal. 1999) Cited 119 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant may object to an RFA asking her to admit that she is a "public figure" as defined in Supreme Court case law as improperly seeking a purely legal conclusion
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC
216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 97 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "importance of the issues in the litigation" factor is neutral in a gender discrimination lawsuit
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,817 times 651 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Ventura v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc

46 Cited authorities

Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

Holding that "a federal court has neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them"

Holding that the party or intervenor “seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted”

Holding a single retailer and a single customer insufficient to establish likelihood of confusion based on actual confusion

Finding magistrate judge's entry of protective order precluding defendant employer from using discovery process to support after-acquired evidence defense proper, noting that "the McKennon Court did not hold that depositions could be conducted for the purpose of uncovering illegal actions."

Holding additional discovery was mandated where plaintiff knew that defendant's production was insufficient because plaintiff herself produced numerous responsive documents

Holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine

Holding that the burden is on the proponent of the privilege to demonstrate "not only that an attorney-client relationship existed, but also that the particular communications at issue are privileged and that the privilege was not waived."

Holding that a defendant may object to an RFA asking her to admit that she is a "public figure" as defined in Supreme Court case law as improperly seeking a purely legal conclusion

Holding that the "importance of the issues in the litigation" factor is neutral in a gender discrimination lawsuit

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37