stating that requiring compliance with subpoena would have been unreasonable given that it was being used as discovery tool
How later courts described this case
- stating that requiring compliance with subpoena would have been unreasonable given that it was being used as discovery tool
- reaching the merits of defendant's contentions regarding a denial of change of venue in spite of the fact that the issue was not briefed
- "The Judge was entitled, indeed required, to take [Defendant’s] claim [for venue transfer] as presented and proved. His duty was to act and having acted it was not for the Defendant to reweigh the strategic or tactical disadvantages of the victory.”
- following and quoting Marcello, 280 F.Supp. at 513
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.