- 9 -
certain that respondent has standing to currently seek
modification of the protective order that was entered. The
materials in question go to the heart of the merits of the tax
controversy in this case; i.e., the relationship between
petitioner and certain U.S. corporations. Under similar
circumstances, courts have recognized that a practical solution
may be needed. In that regard, the Cinpres case is closed, and
considerable delay and expense would be occasioned by the
reopening of that case or the filing of a new action to seek
modification of a protective order. Tucker v. Ohtsu Tire &
Rubber Co., supra at 500.
One pivotal consideration is whether the court issuing the
order merely sanctioned the agreement of the parties or whether
the terms of the order instead reflect the issuing court’s
deliberative process. Where the issuing court has merely
sanctioned the parties’ agreement, those circumstances have been
considered to be more like a private “contract” between the
parties than a holding of a court. Id.
The circumstances of the case before us appear to fit within
the guidelines that have been established by other courts for
compelling discovery of material that was specifically or
generally under a protective order of another court. We proceed
with caution and employ a pragmatic approach to a difficult
procedural problem. In doing so we follow the direction of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011