Schlich v. Broad Inst., Inc. (In Re Schlich)

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “it is neither uncommon nor improper for district courts to grant applications made pursuant to § 1782 ex parte” (quotation omitted)
• noting that the “Supreme Court has not established the appropriate burden of proof ... for any of the discretionary factors, or the legal standard required”
• finding no abuse of discretion where the district court “considered all of the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties,[] [and] found [one party’s] position and supporting evidence more convincing”
• applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to review of a dispute over Intel factors
• “The Supreme Court has not established the appropriate burden of proof, if any, for any of the 22 discretionary factors, or the legal standard required to meet that burden.”
• “The Supreme Court has not established the appropriate burden of proof, if any, for any of the 20 discretionary factors, or the legal standard required to meet that burden.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).