Legal Opinion
Chemical Bank v. Dana
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided March 23, 1993No. Civ. No. 5-92-341 (WWE)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SUPPLEMENTAL RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
EGINTON, Senior District Judge.
FACTS
Boulanger, Hicks, Stein & Churchill (“Bou-langer”) represented Banque Paribas in a separate action against Dana that has since been settled.1 On December 9,1992, Chemical Bank served Boulanger with a subpoena duces tecum for five boxes of documents that Boulanger had retained from the Banque Paribas litigation. On December 11, 1992, Dana filed an emergency motion to temporarily stay discovery and for a protective order to quash the subpoena. On December 14, 1992, this court denied as moot Dana’s motion for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Chazin v. LiebermanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1990
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jacobs v. Connecticut Community Technical CollegesDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2009
- American Transit Insurance Company v. PierreDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2025
- GEOMC Co, Ltd. v. Competitive Technologies, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2020