Miscellaneous Docket 1 v. Miscellaneous Docket 2

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “discovery may not be had on matters irrelevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action”
• holding district court did not abuse its discretion in quashing a subpoena to depose a CEO where the deposition would have been irrelevant and harmful
• discussing factors to be considered in discovery against third parties, including relevance
• quashing subpoena where party sought irrelevant and embarrassing information from deponent
• where ancillary proceeding involves nonparty and main action is pending outside circuit, appellants would have no means outside immediate appeal to obtain review
• abuse of discretion standard applies when reviewing a decision to quash a subpoena under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).