CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. 149-140, 149-141
Regular Panel Decision

Budget Dress Corp. v. Joint Board of Dress & Waistmakers' Union

The Chief Judge ruled on multiple discovery motions in two consolidated actions, one alleging Sherman Act violations and the other concerning the Labor Management Relations Act. Plaintiff moved to vacate defendants’ deposition notices and subpoenas, establish deposition priority, and appoint a federal judge to supervise the process. The court denied most of the plaintiff’s motions, upholding the defendants' subpoenas and granting them priority in conducting depositions. Furthermore, the plaintiff's notice to take depositions was partially vacated, and their notice to produce was entirely vacated due to insufficient specificity. The application for a federal judge to supervise depositions was also denied, with a suggestion for a master if cooperation falters.

DiscoveryDepositionsSubpoenasSherman ActLabor Management Relations ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureAntitrustLabor LawPriority of DiscoveryJudicial Supervision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. 535782
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Deborah Talarico

Claimant, a caseworker, sustained injuries after slipping on ice and was initially paid temporary total disability benefits, which were later changed to temporary partial disability. The employer issued a subpoena for the claimant's medical provider's deposition, which Supreme Court quashed, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 142. A WCLJ established the claim and the parties stipulated to findings. The Board, on its own motion, affirmed the WCLJ's decision and included an interpretation of subpoena regulations. The employer appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, finding the employer was not aggrieved, as the discussion on subpoenas was advisory and the employer had stipulated to the WCLJ's findings, obviating the need for the deposition.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureAggrievementSubpoenaMedical ProviderJurisdictionStipulationDisability BenefitsSlipping AccidentWorkplace Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on National Broadcasting Co.

The opinion addresses motions by news broadcasters to quash Grand Jury subpoenas demanding unbroadcast videotapes ("out-takes") of a June 30, 1998 protest in Manhattan, where police officers were injured and attackers unidentified. The movants invoked Civil Rights Law § 79-h, the "Shield Law," which provides qualified protection for non-confidential news. The court, presided over by Justice Jeffrey M. Atlas, denied the motions, finding that the prosecution met the statutory burden by demonstrating the out-takes are highly material, relevant, critical, necessary, and not obtainable from any alternative source for the ongoing assault investigation.

Grand JurySubpoenaShield LawJournalist PrivilegeFreedom of the PressUnbroadcast FootageOut-takesCivil Rights LawNon-confidential InformationAssault Investigation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. SAC 308622 SAC 308623 SAC 309351 SAC 323463 SAC 355784
Regular
May 09, 2007

DELETTE ZIEGELMANN-JACKSON vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The applicant sought removal to challenge the WCJ's deferral of a ruling on a petition to enforce a subpoena for personal items, arguing it unfairly required a second deposition. The Appeals Board dismissed removal in several cases where no issues were pending, but granted removal in case number SAC 355784. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order deferring the subpoena ruling, allowing for potential further depositions if warranted, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition to EnforceSubpoena Duces TecumDeferred RulingIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationPrivacyDeposition
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1980

Parisi v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted a petitioner's motion to modify a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Waterfront Commission, limiting its scope to the records of Dominick Mancini. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate court denied the petitioner's motion in its entirety, ruling that the subpoena, which sought sign-in and attendance records of waterfront workers' compensation patients treated by the petitioner (a doctor), was legitimate. The court found that the subpoena was neither arbitrary nor in excess of the commission's jurisdiction, citing the commission's ongoing investigation into fraudulent workers' compensation claims by longshoremen. The appellate court also concluded that the subpoena was not vague or overly broad.

Subpoena Duces TecumWaterfront CommissionWorkers' Compensation ClaimsFraud InvestigationJurisdiction of CommissionScope of SubpoenaAppellate ReviewMotion to Set AsideDenial of MotionRecords Production
References
2
Case No. ADJ7046175
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

, DAVID WILKIE, vs. , CHATEAU HOTEL, and FIRSTCOMP OMAHA for SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY,

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal to the Appeals Board, challenging a WCJ's denial of his petition to quash depositions. The applicant argued improper notice and service of deposition subpoenas, but the WCJ admitted the depositions solely for the purpose of determining timely notice, not for substantive evidence. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition because the applicant had not yet suffered prejudice or irreparable harm, as the depositions had not been used for substantive purposes and he could raise objections later if aggrieved.

Petition for RemovalQuash DepositionsCode of Civil ProcedureCCP section 2025.270Proper NoticeProof of ServiceIndustrial InjuryLeft Upper ExtremityFindings and OrderWCAB Rule 10843
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas for Local 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America

This case addresses a challenge by four Union Locals of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, against subpoenas duces tecum issued by a New York County Grand Jury. The subpoenas sought membership lists as part of an investigation into corruption within the carpentry and drywall industry. The Locals argued that the subpoenas violated their members' First Amendment associational rights and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Grand Jury's legitimate and compelling need for the lists to conduct its corruption investigation outweighed the asserted constitutional concerns. The court concluded that the subpoenas were neither overly broad nor burdensome, and the information sought was relevant to the ongoing investigation.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentAssociational RightsFreedom of AssociationUnreasonable Search and SeizureOverbreadthCompelling State InterestCorruption Investigation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 779 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational