United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Elfindepan, S.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[s]peculation that there is more will not suffice; if the theoretical possibility that more documents exist sufficed to justify additional discovery, discovery would never end.”
• “[Plaintiffs fail to account for the possibility that they may in fact have already received all responsive documents.”
• The moving party must show “that documents that have been produced permit a reasonable deduction that other 8 documents may exist or did exist.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).