- 10 -
several other Federal courts.5 The court in Tucker v. Ohtsu Tire
& Rubber Co., supra, formulated guidelines, which it distilled
from various court holdings, to assist in deciding whether it is
appropriate to enter a discovery order that would have the effect
of modifying an order issued by another court. We find that
formulation helpful in our consideration of respondent’s motion
to compel petitioner’s production of the deposition transcripts
in question.
The first area of inquiry is the nature of the other court’s
protective order. This inquiry focuses on whether the order was
issued by a court as its resolution of a controversy or whether
the court simply approved the parties’ agreement. Courts have
afforded less deference to orders based on an agreement of the
parties and merely approved by the court. Conversely, more
deference has been afforded in situations where a court’s order
resulted from a holding that is based on the court’s deliberative
process.
5 Cases where one court compelled production of material
from a prior proceeding subject to a protective order: Morton
Intl., Inc. v. Atochem N. Am., Inc., 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1411 (D. Del.
1990); LeBlanc v. Broyhill, 123 F.R.D. 527 (W.D.N.C. 1988); and
Carter-Wallace Inc. v. Hartz Mountain Indus., Inc., 92 F.R.D. 67
(S.D.N.Y. 1981). Cases where production was denied: Dushkin
Publg. Group, Inc. v. Kinko’s Serv. Corp,, 136 F.R.D. 334, 335
(D.D.C. 1991); Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 650,
655 (D. Md. 1987); and Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Clow
Corp., 111 F.R.D. 65, 67-68 (D.P.R. 1986).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011