Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Carbajal v. Warner

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02862-REB-KLM (D. Colo. Apr. 28, 2015)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Carbajal v. Warner

1 Citing case

  1. United States v. DeLeon

    428 F. Supp. 3d 716 (D.N.M. 2019)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that criminal defendants "cannot justify compelling production of all original recordings" if the Government "clarified that everything the recording devices recorded has been disclosed to the Defendants" (citing United States v. Maranzino, 860 F.2d 981, 985 (10th Cir. 1988) (per curiam))

    In re M & L Bus. Mach. Co., Inc., 161 B.R. 689, 693 (D. Colo. 1993) (Kane, J.)(quoting Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ). See Carbajal v. Warner, 2015 WL 1945129, at *2 n.4 (D. Colo. Apr. 28, 2015) (Mix, J.)(same); United States v. Ramos-Burciaga, 2018 WL 5314922, at *5 (same). The Second Circuit devised a three-part test for what the "party seeking disclosure must show" to "rebut" the law enforcement privilege's application: (i) "that its suit is ‘non-frivolous and brought in good faith’ "; (ii) "that ‘the information sought is not available through other discovery or from other sources’ "; and (iii) "that the information sought is ‘important’ to the party's case."