Davis v. Vanbuskirk

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the “materials at issue merit protection . . . under the more stringent First Amendment” standard because they afforded “an advantage over competitors and therefore may be considered to be trade secrets that provide the requisite compelling government interest”
• declining to exclude affidavits where the designee’s testimony “[did] not rise to the level of obfuscation or suggest some effort by the [company] to ambush the plaintiffs or abuse the discovery process”
• “[Depending on the ‘nature and extent of the obfuscation, the testimony given by [a] non-responsive deponent (e.g., ‘I don’t know’) may be deemed ‘binding on the corporation’ so as to prohibit it from offering contrary evidence at trial.’ ”
• “Why did you choose to omit the 3rd page of the Milano letter from the deposition, which shows that Mike Milano signed the document?”
• “Less drastic alternatives to sealing—such as targeted redaction—would be overly burdensome given the minimal public interest at stake.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).