Cudahy Packing Co. v. Altsheler & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to quash a deposition subpoena directed to the defendant’s wife who, with her unique role in the defendant’s life, might possess a good deal of relevant, non-privileged material
• seeking to avoid disclosure of marital communications and embarrassment associated with questions regarding infidelity
• “The balancing of any burden imposed upon Deponent against Plaintiffs’ need for information is the type of fact-based discovery determination which is particularly suited for deference to a magistrate judge.”
• first quoting Phinney v. Wentworth Douglas Hosp., 199 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1999) (quoting Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R., 902 F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990)); then quoting PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10, 15 (1st Cir. 2010
• first quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); and then quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).