Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that independent jurisdictional basis and strong nexus of fact or law are not required where intervenor merely seeks to challenge a protective order
• holding that “an independent jurisdictional basis is not required [in this case] because intervenors do not seek to litigate a claim on the merits”
• holding that “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 7 examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test”
• holding that “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 8 examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test”
• holding that “broad 18 allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not 19 satisfy the Rule 26(c) test”
• holding that “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or 10 articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).