Explore use cases

These examples work on the Midpage platform, on Claude, or anywhere else Midpage is connected.

Find case where a non-party hedge fund (or similar institution) was served a subpoena for documents relating to trading activity and an alleged short report. Ideally something from the 9th Circuit, S.D. Cal. or N.D. Cal.

Found 38 cases

One S.D. Cal. case references a promising case – In re Biovail Corp. Securities Litigation, but it's from S.D.N.Y. Let me keep digging...

Found 29 more cases

Let me look at the Beaver County case from N.D. Cal. and the Harrington case which involves non-party subpoenas to investment funds:

Analyzed Beaver County v. Tile Shop Holdings

Analyzed Harrington v. BofA Securities

Excellent! The case that most directly matches your criteria is Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No. 3:16-mc-80062 (N.D. Cal. Jun 7, 2016).

It involves a non-party short-seller (Gotham) being subpoenaed for trading records and sources related to a short report.

Facts

The underlying matter was a putative securities class action in the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs filed suit after Gotham City Research, LLC—a non-party short seller—published a negative report about Tile Shop Holdings alleging undisclosed related-party relationships. Gotham had taken a short position in Tile Shop stock before issuing its report, and following the report’s publication, Tile Shop’s stock dropped 39%.

Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc.

3:16-mc-80062·N.D. Cal.·Jun 7, 2016

The present discovery dispute arises out of a putative securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. See Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No. 14-cv-786-ADM-TNL (D. Minn.). Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit following the publication of a negative report about defendant Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. (“Tile Shop”) by Gotham City Research, LLC (“Gotham”), an investor who shorted Tile Shop stock. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants served third-party subpoenas on Gotham seeking documents and depositions. When Gotham failed to comply with the subpoenas, the parties filed separate actions to compel Gotham's compliance. See Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No. 16-80062 (Plaintiffs' action); Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., No. 16-80076 (Defendants' action). The actions have been related and Gotham filed a joint opposition to the parties' separate motions to compel. Gotham objects to both subpoenas as shielded from production by the journalist privilege, seeking trade secrets, and as an undue burden.

Draft Opposition BriefThe other side moved to strike a paragraph of the complaint. I’ve attached their brief and the complaint. Draft the opposition brief.Find CasesFind case where a non-party hedge fund was served a subpoena for documents relating to trading activity and an alleged short report.Cite Check a DraftCite check the first few paragraphs of the attached draft.Draft Legal StandardsOur client is a mid-size industrial equipment distributor dropped after the manufacturer entered exclusive distribution agreements with two large national chains. Draft the legal standard section for our Sherman Act § 1 opposition brief.Compare CircuitsHow do the Third and Eighth Circuits analyze causation under the AKS? Summarize in a chart.Find Supporting AuthorityI need support for the proposition that a former employee’s mere knowledge of trade secrets is insufficient to obtain an injunction under the inevitable disclosure doctrine.Find Cases by Fact PatternFind a case where farmers sued a paper company for contaminating their farmland with PFAS through industrial sludge application.Review Opposing BriefsOpposing counsel filed this summary judgment brief arguing our client’s slip-and-fall claim should be dismissed for lack of notice. Review it and identify the best counter-arguments.Draft TRO MotionOur client’s competitor launched a product under a nearly identical brand name and logo. Draft the legal standard section for our TRO motion for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act in the S.D.N.Y.Fetch DocketsFetch the docket for GoSecure v. CrowdStrike, No. 1:25-cv-02088-RP (W.D. Tex., Austin), pull the MTD briefing and save it in an organized zip file.

Getting started takes seconds.

No sales call. Two-week free trial.

Start free trial today