Skip to main content
D. Minnesota· 9/30/2013

Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC

Citations

  • 295 F.R.D. 228
  • 86 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1221
  • 2013 WL 5467215
  • 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140159

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that “subpoenas issued under Rule 45 are subject to the same constraints that apply to all of the other methods of formal discovery”
  • “[P]arties to whom subpoenas are not directed lack standing to quash or modify such subpoenas on the basis that the subpoenas impose an undue burden.”
  • “Like all other discovery, information sought in connection with expert testimony must be relevant to the claim or defense.”
  • “[T]he movants bears the burden of demonstrating the necessity of a protective order.”
  • “({S]ubpoenas issued under Rule 45 are subject to the same constraints that apply to all of the other methods of formal discovery.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). C. Motions to Compel Discovery Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(i

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tunheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC

5 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.