Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Usdc-Casf

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Supreme Court had “clearly spoken” on the relevant issue
• noting that removal of the subject matter language from Rule 26(b)(1) was 21 “intended to restrict, not broaden, the scope of discovery” (citations omitted)
• stating that after 2015 amendment to Rule 26(b)(1), “the matter 10 sought must be ‘relevant to any party's claim or defense,’” and observing that this change “was 11 intended to restrict, not broaden, the scope of discovery”
• granting writ of mandamus when first three Bauman factors were satisfied but fourth and fifth factors were not and explaining that “[t]he balance of the factors weighs in favor of granting the writ of mandamus”
• after 2015 amendment to Rule 26(b)(1), “the matter sought must be ‘relevant to any 16 party’s claim or defense.’ Rule 26(b)(1). That change, however, was intended to restrict, not 17 broaden, the scope of discovery. See Rule 26(b)(1
• after 2015 amendment to Rule 26(b)(1), “the matter sought must 19 be ‘relevant to any party's claim or defense.’ Rule 26(b)(1). That change, however, was intended to 20 restrict, not broaden, the scope of discovery. See Rule 26(b)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).