Legal Opinion
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided January 17, 2020No. 2:15-cv-00102Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. C15-102RSM 9 Petitioner, ORDER FOLLOWING COURT’S IN 10 CAMERA REVIEW v. 11 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Following Microsoft’s Brief Regarding Privileged Documents Still in Dispute (Dkt. 16 #140), the Court ordered in camera review of certain documents. Dkt. #185. Having reviewed 17 the documents at issue, the Court rules as follows. 18 II. BACKGROUND 19 The government is conducting an examination of Microsoft Corporation’s…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. ZolinSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. RicheyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America v. Mark Torf, Torf Environmental Management, in Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America, Dennis D. Ellis, Intervenor-Appellant. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America, Dennis D. Ellis, Intervenor-Appellant. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America, Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America, Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing, Inc., Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.