United States v. 10,064.97 Acres of Land

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “Rule 26(b)(4) remains a limitation on the right of access by an opposing party to the evidence of experts who have been retained to testify in the case,” and that “the discovery of the facts and opinions of those experts cannot obtain solely under Rule 45”
• interpreting the federal analogue of CR 26(b)(5)(A), which also mentions only depositions, and holding that a bare subpoena duces tecum is not permitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).