- 11 -
Concerning this aspect, petitioner contends that the
protective order in the Cinpres case was entered after an
extended period of disagreement by the parties, hearings by the
District Court, and assistance/involvement of the judge.
Petitioner also points out that the protective order that was
finally entered was different in some respects from those
originally proposed by each party. Petitioner contends that the
order we consider did not merely represent a ministerial act by
the District Court, and, accordingly, more deference should be
afforded the order.
Respondent points out that the parties stipulated and agreed
to the protective order entered by the District Court. In that
regard, the order and the matters it covers were not subjected to
deliberation by the District Court. Although the District Court
played a role (mediator or monitor) in resolving the parties’
disagreement/negotiations regarding the content of the proposed
protective order, the District Court did not deliberate or decide
the controversy. Ultimately, the District Court entered a
protective order which had been stipulated and agreed to by the
parties. Under those circumstances, less deference need be
afforded the protective order on the theory that it is
essentially an agreement of the parties. Although we pay less
deference to the order conceptually, we defer to its substance
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011