Legal Opinion

In re Smirman

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided May 12, 2010No. 09-51223PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. United States v. BDO Seidman, LLPCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
  2. In Re Echostar Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
  3. Fort James Corporation v. Solo Cup CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
  4. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
  5. 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

  1. 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
  2. Daniel Rittenhouse v. David M. Hulce and Wendy K. HulceUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 2012
  3. Nice v. City of AkronDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2019
  4. Walters v. FlintDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API