Legal Opinion
Avery Dennison Corp. v. Four Pillars
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided October 14, 1999No. Misc. Nos. 99-58 (CKK/JMF), 99-86 (CKK/JMF)PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
This case is before me for resolution of (1) Reed Smith Shaw & McClay’s Objections to and Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s June 29, 1999 Orders, and (2) Bork & Associates’ Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Show Cause and In Camera Production Orders1.
On June 23, 1999, I ordered Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, LLP (“Reed Smith”) and Bork & Associates (“Bork”) inter alia to produce for my in camera review the documents which are the subject of Avery Denni-son Corporation’s (“Avery”) subpoena duces tecum which had been served upon…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Robert G. Vaughn v. Bernard Rosen, Executive Director, United States Civil Service CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
- United States v. ZolinSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V. E. B. Carl Zeiss, JenaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1966
- Mark A. Allen v. Central Intelligence AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- In Re Grand Jury SubpoenaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- Banks v. Office of Senate Sergeant-At-ArmsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Mitchell v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- Marshall v. District of Columbia Water & Sewage AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Smith v. Café AsiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.