Legal Opinion
Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided January 25, 2007No. Civil Action No. 06-cv-02182-JLK-BNBPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BOYD N. BOLAND, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before me on the Motion to Quash Improper Subpoena Served On Opposing Party’s Trial Counsel [Doc. # 1, filed 10/30/2006] (the “Motion ”) filed by the law firm of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott (“Bartlit Beck”). Bartlit Beck is not a party to any action relevant here, but it is trial counsel for Static Control Components, Inc. (“Static Control”). The Motion is GRANTED, and the discovery shall not be had.
I
The subpoena at issue here was served in connection with an underlying action, Case No. 04-CV-84-GFVT, pending in the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Shelton v. American Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986
- Lynn and Deyon Boughton v. Cotter CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- In Re Echostar Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- In Re: Grand Jury Proceedings, Intervenor v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Metro Wastewater Reclamation District v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hedquist v. PattersonDistrict Court, D. Wyoming · 2016
- Selby v. O'DeaAppellate Court of Illinois · 2017
- Selby v. O'DeaAppellate Court of Illinois · 2018
- In re SmirmanDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010
- United States v. 1. Executive Recycling, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 2012