Search for: "in re: Motion to Quash Subpoena" Results 41 - 60 of 253
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Apr 2022, 10:12 am by Russell Knight
For good cause shown, the court on motion may quash or modify any subpoena or, in the case of a subpoena duces tecum, condition the denial of the motion upon payment in advance by the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued of the reasonable expense of producing any item therein specified. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 11:00 pm by Doug Austin
 »        Related StoriesJudge Peck Wades Back into the TAR Pits with ‘Da Silva Moore Revisited’: eDiscovery Case LawPlaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena of Text Messages Granted by Court: eDiscovery Case LawCourt Upholds Review of Taxable Costs by Clerk, Awards over $57,000: eDiscovery Case Law  [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 7:51 am by Ken White
They engaged in some rather desultory additional proceedings in the United Kingdom and re-issued the subpoena. [read post]
17 Feb 2020, 10:01 pm by Doug Austin
 »   Related StoriesCiting Protective Order, Court Grants Motion to Quash the Subpoena of Third Party Expert: eDiscovery Case LawPlaintiffs’ Failure to “Hurry” Leads to Denial of Motion to Compel: eDiscovery Case LawMobile Collection: It’s Not Just for iPhones Anymore, Part Two  [read post]
3 Mar 2020, 3:09 pm by Rebecca Jeschke
District Court judge has granted a motion to quash a subpoena for the identity of “Darkspilver,” a Redditor represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). [read post]
4 Jul 2007, 7:56 am
The motion to quash says, essentially, that the subpoena should not be enforced for particular reasons. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 6:28 am by Evan Brown
After the ISP notified one of the anonymous users – referred to as John Doe in the case – of the subpoena, Doe filed a motion to quash. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 10:00 am by Record on Appeal
When the government attempted to subpoena the documents, the law firms moved to quash. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 11:57 am
  The Third Circuit ruled that the district court’s refusal to quash the subpoena was not an abuse of discretion. [read post]
15 Aug 2022, 3:23 pm by Anna Bower
Editor’s note: this afternoon, Judge Leigh Martin May issued an order denying Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) motion to quash the subpoena. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 3:00 am by Ted Folkman
It’s a § 1782 case, but the case doesn’t involve the merits of the application for judicial assistance or a motion to quash. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 12:17 pm
Cal. subpoena duces tecum issued June 14, 2007) We're all aware that Google has plenty of good personal information that can be discoverable. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 10:01 pm by Doug Austin
 »       Related StoriesCourt Grants Motion to Quash Subpoena From Defunct Non-Party Entity: eDiscovery Case LawJudge Says “Alexa, Please Testify in a Double Murder Case”: eDiscovery TrendsTomorrow is the Day to “Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery in Orlando for 2018: eDiscovery Trends  [read post]
12 Oct 2014, 7:03 pm by Andy Wang
In July 2011, Judge Lamberth denied Levine’s motion to quash the subpoena. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 6:14 am by Dan Bressler
” “The court granted both Deniz Bahceci’s and Alettin Bahceci’s motions to quash the subpoenas and to disqualify Baker McKenzie counsel from representing VUZ Bank due to a conflict of interest. [read post]
18 Nov 2018, 10:01 pm by Tom O'Connor
: eDiscovery Best PracticesACEDS Shows Why You Need Those Stinking Badges: eDiscovery TrendsCourt Grants Motion to Quash Subpoena From Defunct Non-Party Entity: eDiscovery Case Law  [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 11:00 pm by Doug Austin
: eDiscovery Best PracticesOrganizations are Increasing Their Investment in Legal Data Analytics, According to New Survey: eDiscovery TrendsPlaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena of Text Messages Granted by Court: eDiscovery Case Law  [read post]
12 Dec 2023, 11:06 am by Eugene Volokh
June 6, 2023) (denying a motion to quash a subpoena issued under § 1782 seeking the identity of anonymous speaker, where there was no evidence indicating that the speaker was entitled to First Amendment protections); Takagi v. [read post]