Legal Opinion
Waelde v. Merck
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided December 3, 1981No. Civ. No. 81-70864PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RALPH M. FREEMAN, District Judge.
Defendant in this drug products liability case has filed a motion for a protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(7). Rule 26(c)(7) provides, in part, that:
Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending .. . may make any order which justice requires to protect a ■ party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including ... (7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. International Business Machines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1975
- United States v. United Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- Reliance Insurance v. Barron'sDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977
- Parsons v. General Motors Corp.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1980
- American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Honorable John F. Grady, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, MCI Communications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- In re Parmalat Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Deford v. Schmid Products Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1987
- Farnum v. G.D. Searle & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1983
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1985
- Contratto v. Ethicon, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2005
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.