Legal Opinion
Bada Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided January 29, 1963No. 62-1517-CCPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEESE, District Judge.
In aid of its action in a federal court in California, the plaintiff has caused a subpoena duces tecum to be issued from this court for the pretrial depositions of the witnesses Greene, doing business in Bristol, Tennessee as Plumbium Manufacturing, as well as for the production of certain documentary material for inspection or copying. Rule 45(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The witnesses Greene by motion to modify object to this subpoena as being “ * * * unclear, unreasonably oppressive and unduly broad.”
This is a patent infringement action. Plumbium…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- The Guilford National Bank of Greensboro, Administrator C.T.A., D.B.N., of the Estate of Joseph M. Coble, Deceased v. Southern Railway Company, and Third-Party v. Garland Batchelor, of the Estate of Annie J. Coble, Deceased, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re Penn Central Commercial Paper LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
- United States v. American Optical Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1966
- Echostar Communications Corp. v. News Corp.District Court, D. Colorado · 1998
- Puckett v. BroomeCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1964
- MacDonald v. HyderCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1970
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.