In re Venturella

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).