Green v. Cosby

How courts have described this case

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

• no undue burden where movant raised purely speculative concerns about public disclosure of potentially sensitive information
• “Even if a [party] has standing generally to quash a subpoena, he still lacks standing to challenge a third- party subpoena based on undue burden because it is the third-party that faces the burden of production and not the [party].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Cole's Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark Inc.
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2016-09-20· cited 14×
• Green v. Cosby
  D. Massachusetts· 2016-04-04· cited 10×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders
  Supreme Court· 1978-06-19· cited 2,321×
• Unnamed case
  Third Circuit· 1994-05-02· cited 609×
• Martindell v. International Telephone And Telegraph Corporation
  Second Circuit· 1979-03-12· cited 56×
• In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2014-05-15· cited 50×
• Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2009-09-03· cited 18×
• Kalinauskas v. Wong
  D. Nevada· 1993-09-08· cited 18×
• Green v. Cosby
  D. Massachusetts· 2015-10-09· cited 12×
• Constand v. Cosby
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2006-01-31· cited 4×
• Constand v. Cosby
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2015-07-06· cited 3×