This column is typically devoted to changes and developments in employment law, summary judgment opinions, new rules or regulations and so on. Every once in a while it is good to peek in on the actual practice of law. If battles are typically won in the trenches, then it can be said that employment cases are won (and lost) during discovery. There is certainly plenty for the lawyers to fight over during discovery, so it is best to equip yourself with some relevant case law.

Take, for example, the recent opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the matter of Paramo v. ASPIRA Bilingual Cyber Charter School, No. 17-CV-3863 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2018) (Surrick, J.). The matter came before the court on a motion to quash and motion for protective order by the defendants in the case. The defendants objected to the service of subpoenas on certain third parties. The subpoenas sought production of case files and materials from two lawyers and to compel the deposition of an independent investigator, along with her investigative file.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]