green
Positive treatment
Hot · 142 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 9×
102.2 score
“hoffman does not resolve the question whether federal courts may award backpay to undocumented workers who have been discharged in violation of title vii.”
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Zepeda v. Rivera Maintenance Landscaping LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
hoffman does not resolve the question whether federal courts may award backpay to undocumented workers who have been discharged in violation of title vii.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Collett v. Mason County
district courts 23 need not condone the use of discovery to engage in fishing expeditions.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Yphantides v. County of San Diego
district courts need not condone the use 26 of discovery to engage in 'fishing expeditions.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Emerson v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc.
district courts need not condone the 11 use of discovery to engage in 'fishing expeditions.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Garner v. Amazon.com Inc
district courts need not condone the use of discovery to engage in fishing 23 expeditions.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Allstate Insurance Company v. Shah, MD
istrict 16 courts need not condone the use of discovery to engage in 'fishing expeditions
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
DelVecchia v. Frontier Airlines
istrict 6 courts need not condone the use of discovery to engage in 'fishing expeditions
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Tsatas v. Airborne Wireless Network, Inc.
district courts need not condone the use of 4 discovery to engage in 'fishing expedition
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Henrickson v. State of Nevada
istrict courts need not condone the use 14 of discovery to engage in fishing expeditions
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick Clarke; Christine Bauknecht; Mary Ann Davis; Freda Lorriaine Taylor v. Providence St. Joseph Health; Providence Health & Services; Providence Health and Services – Washington d/b/a Providence; Providence St. Mary Medical Center; and Providence Medical Group d/b/a Providence Medical Group Southeast Washington Neurosurgery
The burden to show good cause is on the 3 movant of the motion by showing harm or prejudice will arise from the discovery. 4 Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Seagate Technology LLC v. Nhk Spring Co., Ltd.
We may address “any issue fairly included” within an order certified for appeal, “because it is the order that is appealable, and not the controlling question identified by the district court.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hard Yaka LLC v. Hard Yaka Ventures GP, LLC
“The burden is upon the party seeking the order to ‘show good 4 cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, 5 Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 Here, the Court does not find that the Intervening Defendants have shown good cause to 7 stay discovery.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Abbott Laboratories
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Rivera, 364 F.3d at 1063.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc.
The party seeking a 9 protective order bears the burden of showing good cause for the order by “demonstrating harm or 10 prejudice that will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th 11 Cir. 2004). 12 A party’s request for the deposition of a high-level executive of a corporation—a so-called 13 “apex” deposition—poses a risk of abuse or harassment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dooley v. Nevada Gold Mines, LLC
A “district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider a magistrate judge’s pretrial discovery order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) will be reversed only if ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” Mavrix Photographs, LLC v. Livejournal, Inc., 873 F.3d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Aaron D. Stanton v. Dyk
The party seeking a protective order must show "good cause" for the order "by demonstrating [that] harm or prejudice [] will result from the discovery." Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Phillips ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation
The party seeking a protective order 21 bears the burden of showing good cause for the order by “demonstrating harm or prejudice that 22 will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 23 A party’s request for the deposition of a high-level executive of an adverse party—a so- 24 called “apex” deposition—may create a risk of abuse or harassment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Matthews v. Pinchback
The party seeking a 13 protective order has the burden “to ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that 14 will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 15 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for an automatic stay of discovery 16 when a potentially dispositive motion is pending, and federal courts generally look unfavorably 17 upon such stays.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mariscos El Puerto, Inc.
Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 18 (9th Cir. 2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mariscos El Puerto, Inc.
Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 17 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dreher v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company
Employee personnel files 14 Defendant also seeks a protective order regarding employee personnel files. 15 In support, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s request for the files constitutes a “fishing 16 expedition” under Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004); 17 will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and serve to 18 annoy, embarrass, and burden the employees which does not outweigh the 19 potential benefit the files provide.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Robert W. Petersen v. Koelsch Senior Communities LLC
The party seeking a protective order bears the burden of showing good cause for the order by “demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.
The party seeking a protective order 9 bears the burden of showing good cause for the order by “demonstrating harm or prejudice that 10 will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 11 A party’s request for the deposition of a high-level executive of an adverse party—a so- 12 called “apex” deposition—may create a risk of abuse or harassment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.
The party seeking a protective order 14 bears the burden of showing good cause for the order by “demonstrating harm or prejudice that 15 will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bauer v. Bonner County
“The burden is upon the party seeking the order to ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Snow Covered Capital, LLC v. Fonfa
Defendant has not established good cause under Rule 26(c) to prevent production on relevance grounds as to the majority of the requests 8 9 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), “[t]he court may, for good cause, 10 issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 11 burden or expense.” The party seeking the protective order has the burden “to ‘show good cause’ 12 by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 13 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (granting plaintiff a pr…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Snow Covered Capital, LLC v. Fonfa
Except as indicated, the requests are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case 4 5 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), “[t]he court may, for good cause, 6 issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 7 burden or expense.” The party seeking the protective order has the burden “to ‘show good cause’ 8 by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 9 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (granting plaintiff a protective order from discovery 10 requested by defen…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Axelrod v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.
Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 25 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to 26 the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 27 access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance 1 Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in 5 evidence to be discoverable. 3 || Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Iliya v. County of Sacramento
The district judge reviews 16 | only timely objections and conducts its review under a clearly erroneous or contrary to 17 || law standard. /Id.; Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 19 | Dated: April 22, 2024 C i s \U 20 CHI SOO KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 || 3, iliy.1305 23 24 25 26 27 28
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walsh v. Versa Cret Contracting Company Inc.
Mar. 20, 2007) (quoting Liu v. Donna Karan International, Inc., 207 F.Supp.2d 191, 193 (S.D.N.Y.2002)) (acknowledging the “in terrorem effect of inquiring into a party’s immigration status and authorization to work in this country when irrelevant to any material claim because it presents a ‘danger of intimidation [that] would inhibit plaintiffs in pursuing their rights.’”); Topo v. Dhir, 210 F.R.D. 76, 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal citations omitted) (finding it “likely that any undocumented litigant forced to produce documents related to his or her immigration status will withdraw …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Warren v. Hilton Grand Vacations
“The burden is 14 upon the party seeking the order to ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that 15 will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 Here, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to stay discovery. 17 Defendant’s motion to dismiss can be decided without further discovery.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. City of Seattle
The burden of persuasion is on the party 6 seeking the protective order to show good cause by “demonstrating harm or prejudice that 7 will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 8 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Axelrod v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.
Rivera v. 4 || NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 5 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to 6 the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 7 access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 8 expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rexford Properties LLC v. AGCS Marine Insurance Company
As such, the Court issues 25 the following order granting Defendants’ requested stay pending the District Judge’s resolution 26 of Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. 27 / / / 1 III. 2 LEGAL STANDARD 3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(c)(1), “[t]he court may, for good 4 cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 5 undue burden or expense.” The party seeking the protective order has the burden “to ‘show good 6 cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cordova v. Lake County
Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 23 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kamradt v. Esurance Insurance Company
The burden is on the party seeking the order to 9 “‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” 10 Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jimenez v. Government Employees Insurance Company
“The burden is upon the party seeking the 21 order to ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the 22 discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rabin, CPA v. Google LLC
No. 73. 26 The key difference is that the latter order imposes a two-tiered classification system that would 27 allow Google to designate information as either “confidential” or “highly confidential – attorneys’ 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court “may, for good cause, issue an 2 order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 3 expense” in discovery, including by “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, 4 development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a sp…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oatridge v. Future Motion, Inc.
Cal. 2012) (quoting Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 19 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004)). 20 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Downes
The burden is on 14 the party seeking the order to make the showing of good cause “by demonstrating harm or 15 prejudice that will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th 16 Cir. 2004). 17 “[I]t is solely within the province of the state courts to authoritatively construe state 18 legislation.” Cal. Teachers Ass'n v. State Bd. of Educ., 271 F.3d 1141 , 1146 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BLOOM v. Zuffa, LLC
“The burden is upon the party seeking the 3 order to ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the 4 discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzalez-Pozo v. Empire Fire And Marine Insurance Company
“The burden is upon the party seeking the order to 19 ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” 20 Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garner v. Amazon.com Inc
Amazon, as the party seeking a protective order, bears the burden of showing 5 good cause for the order by “demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the 6 discovery.” Rivera v NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Matthews v. Pinchback
The party seeking a 16 protective order has the burden “to ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that 17 will result from the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for an automatic stay on discovery 19 when a potentially dispositive motion is pending, and federal courts generally look unfavorably 20 upon such stays.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. ZAYO GROUP LLC
Cal. 2012) (quoting Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Speaks v. Employers Holdings Inc.
“The burden is upon the party seeking the 2 order to ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the 3 discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Speaks v. Employers Holdings Inc.
“The burden is upon the party seeking the 2 order to ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the 3 discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gibson v. CENDYN Group, LLC
“The burden is upon the party seeking the order to 12 ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” 13 Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 14 Given the Supreme Court’s discussion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 15 (2007) and the Ninth Circuit’s discussion in Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allstate Indemnity Company v. Cooper
“The burden is upon the party seeking the order to 4 ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” 5 Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 II.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Contreraz v. City of Tacoma
“The burden is upon the party seeking the order to 10 ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” 11 Rivera v. Nibco, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 12 a.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eyak Native Village Chanega Native Village Nanwalek Native Village Port Graham Native Village Tatitlek Native Village
v.
William M. Daley Donald Evans
v.
William M. Daley Donald Evans
02-36155.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 7, 2004.
Published
EYAK NATIVE VILLAGE; Chanega Native Village; Nanwalek Native Village; Port Graham Native Village; Tatitlek Native Village, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
William M. DALEY; Donald Evans, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-36155.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed April 7, 2004.
James J. Davis, Jr., Goriune Dudukgian, Heather R. Kendall-Miller, Alaska Legal Services Corporation, Heather Kendall-Miller, Natalie Landreth, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David C. Shilton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Bruce M. Landon, Asst. U.S. Atty., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
ORDER
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be heard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.