In re Smirman
District Court, E.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on non-party Preston Smirman’s (“Smirman”) motion to quash subpoena. The motion has been fully briefed. The Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the parties’ papers such that the decision process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(e)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion be resolved on the briefs submitted. For the following reasons, Smirman’s motion is GRANTED IN PART.
II. BACKGROUND
The…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. BDO Seidman, LLPCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
- In Re Echostar Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Fort James Corporation v. Solo Cup CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Brandy Stahl, on behalf of C.S., a minor, et al. v. Tiffin City Schools Board of Education, et al.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2026
- Daniel Rittenhouse v. David M. Hulce and Wendy K. HulceUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 2012
- Nice v. City of AkronDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2019
- Walters v. FlintDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2022