Legal Opinion
Allen v. Howmedica Leibinger
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Decided November 22, 1999No. 99-MC-0058-GVPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
VESCOVO, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is the September 1, 1999 motion of the plaintiff, George S. Allen, to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum1 issued June 15, 1999, for production of financial, marketing, and licensing information from a nonparty, Medtronic Sofamor Danek (“Danek”). The motion was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for a determination. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.2
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The underlying lawsuit for which plaintiff seeks documents is currently…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Truswal Systems Corp. v. Hydro-Air Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Micro Motion, Incorporated v. Kane Steel Co., Inc., Cross/appellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- American Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc. And Howmedica, Inc., and Biomet, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Juhasz v. Quik Shops, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Johnson v. Nissan North America, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2004
- Anderson v. Dillard's, Inc.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2008
- Genesco, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2014
- In re HaynesUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2017
- Clifford Michael Johnson v. Nissan North America, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.