428 F. Supp. 2d 188 - In Re Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Whether the documents or testimony sought are within the foreign tribunal's jurisdictional reach, and thus accessible absent [ Section] 1782 aid; (2) The nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance; (3) Whether the [ Section] 1782 request conceals a[n] attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States; and (4) Whether the subpoena contains unduly intrusive or burdensome requests.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Hulley Enters., Ltd. · In Re Hansainvest Hanseatische Investment-Gmbh

2. “[T]he Commission has explicitly stated that it opposes the discovery sought by Microsoft and is not receptive to U.S. judicial assistance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 466 F. Supp. 2d 1020 - In Re Order for Labor Court of Brazil · 162 F. Supp. 3d 1029 - In re Qualcomm Inc.

3. “While IBM and Cleary Gottlieb are not 'participants,' per se , in the underlying antitrust proceeding, all of the documents sought by Microsoft are within the Commission's reach.... The relevant inquiry is whether the evidence is available to the foreign tribunal. In this case, it is.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Hulley Enters., Ltd.