Blum v. Schlegel

How courts have described this case

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

• finding serious harm outweighed relevance therefore ordering that discovery not be had
• disclosure of private information would require continued participation in lawsuit, subjecting non-party to burden and expense to ensure against further oppression
• “The party seeking protection from disclosure has the burden of making a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from general, conclusory statements, revealing some injustice, prejudice, or consequential harm that will result if protection is denied.”
• considering unfairness to nonparty of disclosure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re Parmalat Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2009-06-01· cited 140×
• Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Services, Inc.
  D. Minnesota· 1999-06-07· cited 82×
• Prokosch v. Catalina Lighting, Inc.
  D. Minnesota· 2000-05-24· cited 73×
• Onwuka v. Federal Express Corp.
  D. Minnesota· 1997-11-24· cited 34×
• Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.
  D. Minnesota· 1996-07-09· cited 31×
• Hasbrouck v. BankAmerica Housing Services
  N.D. New York· 1999-08-04· cited 25×
• 100reporters LLC v. United States Department of Justice
  District of Columbia· 2014-12-03· cited 18×
• Kerr v. Able Sanitary and Environmental Services, Inc.
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1996-11-15· cited 17×
• Tanis v. Crocker
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1996-06-26· cited 12×
• Carlson v. Geneva City School District
  W.D. New York· 2011-09-19· cited 10×
• Smith v. Dowson
  D. Minnesota· 1994-07-29· cited 8×
• Hill v. Motel 6
  S.D. Ohio· 2001-10-31· cited 7×