United States v. Stroop

How courts have described this case

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

• “[B]arring the deposition of the SEC is a result that accords with the negative light in which depositions of 5288962, at (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2013); SEC v. Nacchio, 614 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1176-78 (D. Colo. 2009
• entering protective order because deposition notice amounted to an attempt “to ascertain how the SEC intends to marshal[] the facts, documents and testimony in its possession, and to discover the inferences that plaintiff believes properly can be drawn from the evidence it has accumulated”
• “in circumstances similar to the case at bar, the use of contention interrogatories has been authorized in the face of work product objections”
• “Based on a review of the areas of inquiry highlighted in [the defendant’s] Notice of Deposition, the Court finds that the proposed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition constitutes an impermissible attempt by defendant to inquire into the mental processes and strategies of the SEC.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).