Discovery Objections Subpoenas 
E-Discovery LLC
OCTOBER 15, 2024
July 22, 2024), the Court addressed the type of objections that a subpoenaed non-party may make. That was a novel issue in Maryland. The Court held “that [nonparty] TST had standing to challenge the subpoena on grounds that some of the requests were overbroad and not relevant to the subject matter involved in the divorce action.”
E-Discovery LLC
NOVEMBER 27, 2024
20, 2024), the court addressed recovery of expenses by non-parties for responding to a subpoena. 45 (“Subpoena”) states: (b)(1) – Under some circumstances, witness fees and mileage must be paid. [1] d)(3)(B) – A court may, on motion, ensure “that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
E-Discovery LLC
NOVEMBER 11, 2024
non-party TEDCO’s blanket privilege and work product objections to a subpoena were denied; however, it lived to fight another day because the denial was without prejudice to file supported objections after a “meet and confer.” Specific objections are required. And, ImpactHR responded without objection.
E-Discovery LLC
DECEMBER 19, 2024
29, 2024), Plaintiff Walker served a subpoena duces tecum on non-party JBHH, which had represented defendant AIU in workers compensation proceedings involving Mr. Walker. The subpoena requested a complete copy of the file in Mr. Walkers case. JBHH moved to quash the subpoena and also noted objections. citing L.R.
Percipient
APRIL 22, 2023
Your company received a document subpoena in a legal dispute in which it is not involved. If the subpoena issued is in federal litigation, your company is likely responsible for the cost of compliance, especially if it has a connection to the litigation. Who covers the expense in responding to it? In United States v. 11 cv 4071 (N.D.
E-Discovery LLC
JANUARY 2, 2025
Plaintiff Spivey served a subpoena on non-party API. While Mr. Spivey asserted that the negotiated search terms defined the scope of discovery, and that they were narrowly tailored, API asserted that it need not produce nonresponsive or irrelevant documents. API allegedly had information about the process. They negotiated search terms.
E-Discovery LLC
SEPTEMBER 12, 2024
34 discovery requests propounded by defendant Meta Platforms, Inc., 34 discovery requests propounded by defendant Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta responded that Rule 34 requests were proper and it should not be forced to serve over 200 subpoenas under Rule 45. 2024), applies the “legal control” standard to Fed.R.Civ.P.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
130 
Let's personalize your content