Appellate Law

CA1: 26(b)(1) fight over non-parties and Hinduism

By S. COTUS

In Re: Subpoena to Michael Witzel, No. 07-2286.  This is an appeal of a denial of a motion to compel enforcement of a California subpoena of a non-party.  It is affirmed.  ? The only documents in dispute for purposes of the motion to compel were Witzel?s communications with nonparties that were unknown to the defendants in the California litigation.?  The underlying dispute involves how Hindus are badly portrayed in some textbooks.  The underlying dispute seems like inside baseball, and involves, and, predictably degenerates into a fight between academics that was played out over email.  Then the emails turned threatening.  But, really what this involves is new FRCP 26(b)(1).  Essentially, the First says that ?A party seeking broader discovery ?of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action,? is required to show good cause to support the request.?

The First noted that the movants did not show how they would be prejudiced.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on July 07, 2008 (boomark / email).