Legal Opinion

Blotzer v. L-3 Communications Corp.

District Court, D. Arizona

Decided April 11, 2012No. CV-11-274-TUC-JGZPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

JENNIFER G. ZIPPS, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Quash filed by Plaintiffs on April 3, 2012. (Doc. 53.) Defendant filed a response to the Motion on April 9, 2012. (Doc. 57.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant the Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges a single cause of action against Defendants: a claim for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et *509seq. (“FLSA”). Defendant has served three of Plaintiff Blotzer’s former employers with subpoenas duces tecum seeking:

all employment records and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sanchez v. City of Santa AnaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  2. William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Some Seto, Individually and Doing Business as Tony of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. AmSurg Holdings Incorporated v. AnireddyDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2020
  2. Briggs v. Juul Labs Inc.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2024
  3. Daniels v. Wakefield & Associates, IncDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2021
  4. Erwin v. OBI Seafoods LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023
  5. In re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on GenembryomicsDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2026

6 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