Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the deposition-discovery regime of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a more flexible approach to attorney depositions than the rigid Shelton rule” but declining to “rule definitively on the matter” because the issue was rendered moot
• stating that “the need to depose [a] lawyer” is a consideration in determining whether eliciting testimony “would entail an inappropriate burden or hardship”
• suggesting that interrogatories to counsel would be less burdensome than a deposition
• noting that Rule 26(b)(2) permits a district court to limit discovery
• declining to apply the Shelton test because the attorney-deponent was not then and had never been counsel to a party involved in the lawsuit
• noting the “burdens imposed on the adversary process” when lawyers are the subject of discovery requests

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).