Leyva v. Buley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was no compelling need for disclosure because Defendant had other means to prepare for trial
• holding that there was no compelling need for disclosure because Defendant had other means to prepare for trial
• noting that the cost of deposing all past and current employees is irrelevant
• discussing discovery disputes in a colorful opinion laced with dog references such as “on a short lease,” “dogma” and “barking up the wrong tree.”
• explaining that the “deliberative process privilege must be, properly invoked” by “the head of the agency which seeks to prevent the disclosure” or a delegated “subordinate with high authority,” either of whom must have “personally reviewed the purported privileged matter”
• finding that disclosure was only proper in relation to the twelve informants, which Plaintiff used to support its motion for summary judgment, because Defendant would be deprived of the ability to dispute issues of fact when a motion is premised on an informant’s statement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).