HDSherer LLC v. Natural Molecular Testing Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• granting motion to quash where subpoenas were issued to eighteen of the defendant’s customers, thereby causing harm to the defendant’s customer relationships
• stating a subpoena imposes an undue burden if it is over-broad
• “Rule 45 does not list irrelevance or overbreadth as reasons for quashing a subpoena. However, the scope of discovery allowed under a subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 26.”
• “Rule 45 does not list irrelevance or overbreadth as reasons for quashing a subpoena. However, the scope of discovery allowed under a subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 26.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Meents
  D. Maryland· 2014-03-04· cited 17×
• Layman ex rel. Layman v. Junior Players Golf Academy, Inc.
  D. South Carolina· 2016-04-21· cited 11×
• Sherrill v. Dio Transport, Inc.
  D. South Carolina· 2016-11-18· cited 10×
• Integramed America, Inc. v. Patton
  D. South Carolina· 2014-04-10· cited 1×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Singletary v. Sterling Transport Co.
  E.D. Virginia· 2012-11-07· cited 69×
• In Re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC
  E.D. Virginia· 2008-04-18· cited 41×
• Castle v. Jallah
  E.D. Virginia· 1992-07-23· cited 10×
• Green v. Sadder Mouldings, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2004-08-02· cited 9×
• Finley v. Trent
  N.D. West Virginia· 1997-02-28· cited 8×