Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting district attorney’s argument that only a state court “can issue an ‘unsealing order’” giving the plaintiff access to 160.50 records of another
• rejecting district attorney’s objections to third-party discovery because “[w]hen a plaintiff asserts federal claims ‘the state sealing statute [Section 160.50] does not govern’” (alterations in original
• compelling district attorney to unseal and produce non-privileged materials from plaintiff’s criminal record
• “While Rule 26(b) does not apply, the work-product doctrine articulated in Hickman ... and its progeny may.”
• “Federal courts can and commonly do order production of documents sealed under Section 160.50”
• “Federal courts can and commonly do order production of documents sealed under Section 160.50”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).