- 4 -
and two of Ladney’s U.S. entities (the same ones that respondent
determined were petitioner’s dependent agents).
Pursuant to stipulation and agreement of the parties in the
Cinpres case, the District Court entered a protective order on
June 10, 1997, in order to “expedite the flow of discovery
material, facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over
confidentially, adequately protect material entitled to be kept
confidential, and insure that protection is afforded only to
material so entitled”.
Although there had been disagreement between the parties as
to the content of the order, the parties, after assistance from
the District Court, stipulated and agreed to an order, which the
District Court approved. Under the protective order, any party,
without court approval, could designate documents as either
“confidential” or “attorney’s eyes only” by stamping same on the
document. Only documents containing “highly sensitive business
or technical information” could be stamped for “attorney’s eyes
only”. The Cinpres case was closed on December 12, 1998, without
a trial and following a settlement reached by the parties.
In pertinent part, the Cinpres protective order contained
the following prohibition on the use of documents classified as
confidential by the parties: (1) Other than use by the parties
to the Cinpres litigation and their counsel, disclosure of a
classified document was not permitted without prior written
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011