Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 3/31/1998

Mishkin v. Ageloff

Citations

  • 220 B.R. 784
  • 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6577
  • 1998 WL 230267

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a request for discovery from defendants, named third parties, unnamed third parties, and an unspecified number of customers of a third-party corporation constituted an “open-ended, boundless universe of discovery” and failed the particularity requirement
  • noting that “the concept of particularized discovery is a nebulous one, and the phrase is not devoid of ambiguity”
  • noting that efficiency and uniformity were “critical question[s]” (citing In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d at 1100)
  • rejecting a request for “documents and testimony” from the defendants, several named third parties, and a group of unnamed third parties as insufficiently particularized
  • withdrawing bankruptcy reference where securities fraud claims were “complex” and implicated “developing law with respect to pleading issues under the [Private Securities Litigation Reform Act]”
  • denying request where plaintiff requested “documents and testimony” from defendants, former customers, and third parties, but did not identify particular documents or names of customers whose documents or testimony was sought

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Preska

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Mishkin v. Ageloff

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.