Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc.
District Court, District of Columbia
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOLTZOFF, District Judge.
This is a motion by prospective witnesses, who are not parties to the action and whose depositions are about to be taken by the plaintiffs, to limit subpoenas duces tecum, that have been issued against them. The action is brought to recover triple damages under the antitrust Acts. This matter is governed by Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subsection (b) of that rule authorizes the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum and then goes on to provide that “but the court, upon motion made promptly and in any event at or before the time specified in the…
2Cited by36 opinions
- Premium Service Corporation v. The Sperry & Hutchinson Company, George A. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Badman v. StarkDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- Miller v. Doctor's General HospitalDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1977
- In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1985
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.