Watts v. Securities & Exchange Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 \requires that district courts quash subpoenas that call for privileged matter or would cause an undue burden\
• observing that an “internal agency process for reaching a decision . . . is not typically or comfortably described as an ‘adjudication’ (even given the broad scope of formal and informal adjudications under the APA)”
• stating that “the ‘normal default rule’” requires parties challenging agency action to start in federal district court rather than in a federal court of appeals (quoting Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Pena, 17 F.3d 1478, 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1994))
• describing challenge to agency’s refus al to comply with the subpoena as the same as a Rule 45 motion to quash by the agency
• raising sua sponte whether the agency 6 decision under review was an “order” for purposes of Exchange Act section 25
• “The Rule 45 ‘undue burden’ standard requires district eourts supervising discovery to be generally sensitive to the costs imposed on third parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).