Richard A. Farnsworth v. The Procter & Gamble Company v. Center for Disease Control, Movant/appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Rule 26(c) “gives the district court discretionary power to fashion a protective order.”
• noting that the Rules “strongly favor full discovery whenever possible[]”
• citing, among other cases, Richards of Rockford, Inc. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 71 F.R.D. 388, 389 (N.D. Cal. 1976
• finding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to compel further discovery on the basis of Local Rule 3.01(g)
• “Federal courts have superimposed a balancing of interests approach for Rule 26’s good cause requirement.”
• “The law’s basic presumption is that the public is entitled to every person’s evidence. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).