Legal Opinion

In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas 89-3 and 89-4

District Court, E.D. Virginia

Decided April 13, 1990PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLIS, District Judge.

The matter is before the Court on a Motion to Quash two subpoenas duces tecum. The first was served on movant corporation. The second was served on a corporation now independently owned, but formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of movant corporation. Documents sought in the subpoenas span a six-year period (1983— 89) during which the subsidiary corporation existed first as an unincorporated division of the movant, then later as a wholly-owned incorporated subsidiary, and finally as a separate, independently-owned company. Movant resists production of a…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. WeintraubSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. In Re Sealed CaseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
  4. United States v. Martin SchwimmerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
  5. In Re Cochise College Park, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Guy v. United Healthcare Corp.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1993
  2. Glidden Co. v. JandernoaDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1997
  3. X Corp. v. DoeDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1992
  4. NCL Corp. v. Lone Star Building Centers (Eastern) Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1992
  5. American International Specialty Lines Insurance v. NWI-I, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API