- 8 -
possibly as an “aggrieved entity”, would have been able to seek
declassification of the materials sought here.4
There appears to be no question about whether the protective
order survived the Cinpres litigation and continues to have full
force and effect on the parties subject to it or about the
issuing District Court’s ability/authority to modify or revoke
the order. See Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d
775, 780-782 (1st Cir. 1988).
Matters of comity influence courts’ decisions whether to
issue orders that affect or modify protective orders issued by
other courts. See, e.g., Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D.
648, 650, 655 (D. Md. 1987); Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth.
v. Clow Corp., 111 F.R.D. 65, 67-68 (D.P.R. 1986). “These
principles, while unquestionably important, are not absolute, and
courts asked to issue discovery orders in litigation pending
before them also have not shied away from doing so, even when it
would modify or circumvent a discovery order by another court”.
Tucker v. Ohtsu Tire & Rubber Co., 191 F.R.D. 495, 499-500 (D.
Md. 2000).
Respondent did not have the opportunity to intervene in the
Cinpres case to seek access to the materials, and we are not
4 We must assume from petitioner’s argument that respondent
should first attempt to obtain the documents by seeking them from
the District Court that petitioner believes that respondent had
standing under the protective order to seek declassification of a
document.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011