United States v. Hollnagel

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a non-party’s production “expenses should not be awarded” because the non-party “was not the quintessential innocent, disinterested bystander”
• “[u]nder Rule 45, a nonparty is not rigidly required to seek reimbursement for the costs of compliance prior to responding to a subpoena”
• non-party was “not-neutral” for purposes of awarding costs where the non-party was an auditing firm that had audited one of the parties and had been a party in previous litigation resulting from its auditing work

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).