Docket No. 02-6239

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Rule 16 imposes a stricter limit to discovery in criminal matters than Rule 26 imposes in civil litigation
• acknowledging that the court has “entertained work product challenges to grand jury subpoenas even though neither [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] nor [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] strictly applies in this context.”
• acknowledging that the court has “entertained work product challenges to grand jury subpoenas even though neither [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] nor [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] strictly applies in this context.”
• describing submission of documents for in camera review as “a practice both long-standing and routine in cases involving claims of privilege”
• describing the presentation of documents for in camera review as a “practice both long- standing and routine in cases involving claims of privilege” and citing illustrative cases
• submission of documents to court for in camera, ex parte review is “a practice both long-standing and routine in cases involving claims of privilege” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).