5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 47 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart Anchor | green | “to be sure, rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” | 18 |
| 2 | Bounds v. Capital Area Family Violence Intervention Center, Inc. | green | “parties have limited standing to quash subpoenas served on non-parties pursuant to rule 45.” | 9 |
| 3 | David Linder v. National Security Agency | green | “odification of a subpoena is generally preferred to outright quashing . . . .” | 8 |
| 4 | Bounds v. Capital Area Family Violence Intervention Center, Inc. | green | “nevertheless, a party has standing to move for a protective order pursuant to rule 26(c) seeking to limit the scope of discovery, even if the party does not have standing pursuant to rule 45(d) to bring a motion to quash a third-party subpoena.” | 7 |
| 5 | U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. James | green | “the general rule is that a party has no standing to quash a subpoena served upon a third party, except as to claims of privilege relating to the documents being sought.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.