ETSI Pipeline Project v. Burlington Northern, Inc. Case Citations for Reference

A&R Body Specialty v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

CIV. NO. 3:07CV929 (WWE) (D. Conn. Nov. 14, 2013)
Similarly, in Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960), the Supreme Court found that there was "substantial uncontroverted evidence that public identification of persons ... as members ... had been followed by harassment and threats of bodily harm." Id. at 524; see also ETSI Pipeline Project v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 674 F. Supp. 1489, 1490 (D.D.C. 1987) (granting a motion to quash subpoenas where the record was "clear and uncontroverted" that the requested information would have resulted in reprisal or harassment of the non-party or its officers and contributors). While making out a prima facie case of harm is not heavy burden, non-parties "must at least articulate some resulting encroachment on their liberties."

State of Wyoming vs. United States Department of Agriculture

Ruling on discovery issues

The Defendant-Intervenors complain that Magistrate Judge Beaman did not cite the following the cases in his Order, however, they were inapposite to that Order because the Judge did not find that Plaintiff established a prima facie case that the Associational Privilege should be applied. See ETSI Pipeline Project v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 674 F. Supp. 1489, 1490 (D.D.C. 1987) (Plaintiffs sought financial contributor lists, therefore, the court applied a balancing test); Australia/Eastern U.S.A. Shipping, 537 F. Supp. at 812 (government sought disclosure of certain associational activity, therefore the court applied a balancing test to hold the Associational Privilege applicable); United States v. Garde, 673 F. Supp. 604, 607 (D.D.C. 1987) (plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the Associational Privilege applied, therefore court conducted a balancing test and held information was not protected); Snedigar, 786 P.2d at 785-87 (holding court of appeals erred in requiring the party asserting the Associational Privilege to show that the disclosure of the information would in fact impinge on First Amendment rights and then remanding the case for the lower court to apply the balancing test); Britt, 574 P.2d at 777 (holding the trial court erred in issuing a discovery order that required disclosure of membership lists and financial contributors because it was


No comments:

Contra Costa Flaws

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Ad Home

Follow Us

No one has ever become poor by giving, Please Donate

Flickr Images


Powered by Blogger.


Search This Blog

Find Us On Facebook

Random Posts

Recent Posts

Header Ads



Blog Archive


Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Unordered List

  • Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
  • Aliquam tincidunt mauris eu risus.
  • Vestibulum auctor dapibus neque.