Legal Opinion
Urseth v. City of Dayton
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided March 19, 1986No. C 3-84-103PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA (DOCS. # 71, 74); PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION SUSTAINED (DOC. #84); IMPOSITION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
RICE, District Judge.
This case comes before the Court for resolution of certain discovery impasses which have arisen between the parties.
The first of these discovery impasses arises from Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum upon Jose Lopez, the Special Prosecutor of the Special Grand Jury which investigated and then indicted Defendants Varvel, Navarre, Chabali, Shows, Holland,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops NorthwestSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives and Records ServiceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kelly v. City of San JoseDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1987
- Tuite v. HenryDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Burke v. New York City Police DepartmentDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
- Henneman v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Scouler v. CraigDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.