- 6 -
documents or provided the redacted portions, it is unable to do
so because of the protective order entered in the Cinpres case.
Discussion
Petitioner urges this Court to respect the terms of the
protective order, which prohibits disclosure without modification
of the order and/or approval of the District Court that issued
the order. Petitioner suggests that respondent should first
attempt to request the District Court that issued the order to
modify it in order to accommodate the disclosure. Petitioner
further postulates that this Court should not entertain
respondent’s discovery request until after respondent has shown
that he was unable to obtain the materials from the District
Court. Petitioner, however, also argues that respondent is not
entitled to the protected material. We note that petitioner, who
was a party in the Cinpres case and would have standing under the
terms of the protective order, has not offered to approach the
District Court to facilitate respondent’s access to the protected
material.3 Petitioner is vigorously attempting to keep
3 We observe that petitioner has resisted the production of
the depositions. Petitioner appears to be using another court’s
protective order as a shield or bar to compliance with
respondent’s discovery request. Petitioner has not suggested any
alternatives and has displayed an aversion to seeking
modification of the protective order under consideration.
Petitioner does not contend that any portion of the deposition
transcripts it has withheld contains proprietary business
information that would be in need of protection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011