Legal Opinion

Hillerich & Bradsby Co. v. MacKay

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided October 29, 1998No. 98-197 RMUPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ORDER

URBINA, District Judge.

I. Introduction

This matter comes before the court upon the plaintiffs motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served upon its attorney, Harvey B. Jacobson, Jr., Esq., by the defendants. The discovery dispute centers on whether the defendants had an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Jacobson, who also represented the plaintiff. The defendants’ subpoena duces tecum requested documents relating to a patent application Mr. Jacobson prepared, which listed the defendants as co-inventors. 1

The plaintiff, Hillerich & Bradsby Co. (“H & B”), based its motion to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. EF Hutton & Company v. BrownDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1969
  2. In Re the Regents of the University of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
  3. SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1976
  4. Teresa Simpson, Administratrix of the Estate of Raymond K. Simpson, Deceased v. Motorists Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1974
  5. Athridge v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SiskindCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  2. Merck Eprova AG v. ProThera, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
  3. MacKenzie-Childs LLC v. MacKenzie-ChildsDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2009
  4. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung Der Wissenschaften E v. v. Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, PCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2010
  5. Albany Molecular Research, Inc. v. SchloemerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API