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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Doe

This case involves an antitrust investigation into the linen supply industry in the New York Metropolitan area. Grand Jury subpoenas were served on various linen supply companies (Suppliers), their association (Linen Supply Institute of New York), and a union (Laundry Workers International Union, Local 284 AFL). The Suppliers, Association, and Union filed motions to quash or modify these subpoenas, citing unreasonableness, oppressiveness, and jurisdictional doubts. District Judge McGOHEY largely denied these motions, asserting the Grand Jury's broad investigative powers and confirming the reasonableness of the subpoena's scope and timeframe. However, the court did grant limited relief by exempting documents already possessed by the Government and by narrowing certain demands related to the Union's internal financial data.

AntitrustGrand JurySubpoena Duces TecumQuashing SubpoenaModifying SubpoenaLinen Supply IndustryLabor UnionInterstate CommerceJudicial DiscretionDepartment of Justice
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2014

In re Maria S.

This case concerns a motion filed by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to quash a subpoena from respondent Ramon R., seeking records from a 2007 investigation into his household, which was previously deemed unfounded. Ramon R. is currently facing allegations of sexual offenses against Maria S. in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding. The court determined that the 2007 investigative materials are relevant to the current allegations, especially regarding Maria S.’s interactions with Ramon R. Despite Social Services Law § 422(5)(a) mandating the sealing of unfounded reports, the court ruled that other investigative documents are not subject to this sealing provision. Consequently, the motion to quash was granted in part and denied in part, ordering ACS to release all documents from the 2007 investigation, excluding the oral report transmittal, after an in camera review.

SubpoenaChild Protective ServicesFamily LawRecord DisclosureConfidentialityUnfounded ReportsIn Camera ReviewSocial Services LawFamily Court ActChild Abuse Allegations
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allocco Recycling, Ltd. v. Doherty

Plaintiff Allocco Recycling, Ltd. subpoenaed non-party Urbitran Associates, Inc. for documents prepared for the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY). Defendant John Doherty, Commissioner of DSNY, moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, claiming the documents were irrelevant, unduly burdensome to produce, and protected by deliberative process privilege. Allocco cross-moved to compel production. This memorandum decision specifically addresses the deliberative process privilege claim, finding that the documents, which involve data collection and analysis by a government consultant, are purely factual and do not constitute advisory opinions or policy deliberations. Therefore, the court ruled that the documents are not protected by the deliberative process privilege.

Deliberative Process PrivilegeSubpoenaMotion to QuashProtective OrderMotion to CompelDiscoveryGovernment DocumentsFactual InformationAgency PolicyGovernment Consultant
References
24
Case No. ADJ8071753
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

RAFAEL CASTRO vs. VALLEY CREST COMPANIES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, quashing the applicant's subpoena duces tecum. The Board found the subpoena's request for "any and all logs" to be vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Consequently, the employer cannot be compelled to produce documents under such an unclear demand. The applicant must issue a more specific subpoena if he wishes to obtain particular documents.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash SubpoenaSubpoena Duces TecumWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLandskaperIndustrial InjuryVague SubpoenaAmbiguous SubpoenaIntelligent Response
References
0
Case No. ANA 0400591
Regular
May 05, 2008

ALEXANDER SPITZ vs. PEPSI BOTTLING COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded a prior order from the administrative law judge, and quashed the applicant's subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested documents and that the protracted proceedings surrounding the subpoena were neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contrary to public policy. The applicant may issue a new, narrowly drawn subpoena if future disputes necessitate document production.

RemovalPetition for RemovalQuash Subpoena Duces TecumCode of Civil Procedure Section 1985(b)Good CauseMaterialityPublic PolicySubstantial JusticeExpeditiouslyInexpensively
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2004

Odfjell ASA v. Celanese AG

The Memorandum Order by District Judge Rakoff addresses motions related to arbitration subpoenas. The Court granted claimants Celanese and Millennium Petrochemicals' motion to enforce subpoenas against non-parties Stolt-Nielsen entities, requiring them to appear, testify, and produce documents before the arbitration panel. Concurrently, the Court denied Stolt-Nielsen's motion to quash a similar subpoena against Paul E. O’Brien and their subsequent motion to stay the Order. The decision clarifies that Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act grants arbitrators the power to compel non-parties to appear before them for testimony and document production, not limited to a final hearing. The Court emphasized that issues of privilege and confidentiality raised by Stolt-Nielsen should first be determined by the arbitration panel, demonstrating deference to arbitral processes.

Federal Arbitration ActArbitration SubpoenaNon-Party DiscoveryPre-Hearing DiscoveryMotion to QuashMotion to EnforceArbitrator PowersPrivilege IssuesConfidentialityJudicial Review
References
9
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

In re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas

Subject E renewed her motion to purge civil contempt, which was imposed for her failure to produce foreign bank records pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. The Court had previously held Subject E in contempt and denied a prior motion to purge, noting her incomplete compliance. Subject E argued that the Credit Suisse consent directive, lacking a statement of compulsion, would violate her Fifth Amendment testimonial privilege. However, the Court found the directive non-testimonial as it only sought existing accounts and the requested documents fell under the 'required records doctrine'. Consequently, Subject E's motion was denied without prejudice, but the commencement of sanctions was suspended until April 24, 2017, to allow another opportunity for full compliance.

Civil ContemptGrand Jury SubpoenaBank RecordsFifth AmendmentTestimonial PrivilegeConsent DirectiveForeign Bank AccountsPurge ContemptSanctionsRequired Records Doctrine
References
12
Case No. VNO 536198
Regular
Apr 07, 2008

JUAN ALVAREZ vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; c/o SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order denying their motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. This decision was based on the absence of the subpoena itself in the case file, preventing the Board from understanding the scope of the requested documents or the parties' arguments. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to obtain necessary documentation and clarify the issues.

Petition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumQuashOverbroadVagueAmbiguousOppressiveBurdensomePrivacyConfidentiality
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,094 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