Shiff v. Shiff

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that the “reasonable particularity requirement [in Rule 34(b)] should apply with no less force to a subpoena’s document requests to a non-party”
• denying defendant’s request for protective order under Rule 26(c)(1) where defendant did not articulate a specific need for the order but instead only argued that the discovery sought was irrelevant
• denying the party’s request to modify or terminate a protective order entered by another court when no effort was made to file a motion with the entering court to modify or terminate its order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).