Dg Acquisition Corp Dg Corp Dg v. Dabah’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Jackson v. Federal Express (2014), In re Subpoena Issued to Dennis Friedman Llp (2003)
8 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Kastigar v. United States · Fisher v. United States · Church of Scientology of California v. United States · United States v. Bryan · Maness v. Meyers
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c)(2)(B) ... a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection and copying of any or all of the designated materials or the premises. (c)(3)(A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[a] trial court enjoys wide discretion in its handling of pre-trial discovery, and its rulings with regard to discovery are reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 45(c)(2)(B)[ ] require[s] the recipient of a subpoena to raise all objections at once, rather than in staggered batches, so that discovery does not become a “game.” We ... believe that [Rule 45](d)(2) contains additional requirements for a claim of privilege not alternative ones. While we are mindful that “the investment of time necessary to review all responsive documents for privileged material ... does not lend itself to the limited fourteen (14) day time period ...,” a person responding to a subpoena should at least assert any privileges within the 14 days provided in Rule 45(c)(2)(B). A full privilege log may follow “within a reasonable time,” or if more time is needed an extension may be sought from the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.