- 12 -
and intent to protect the confidential materials that may be
contained in the deposition transcripts.
The second Tucker factor concerns the identity of the party
from whom discovery is sought. This factor focuses on whether
the document sought is from a person originally entitled to have
it. As a party to the Cinpres case, petitioner was entitled to
the transcript of depositions, and, therefore, petitioner was an
original holder of this document.
Petitioner points out that the Tucker case involved a one-
sided order; i.e., the protected materials flowed from one
source. Petitioner contends that the circumstances of this case
are different because it was not a one-sided (sole source) order.
Respondent counters that the documents sought (depositions) could
have been designated as protected by any of the parties in the
Cinpres case. In effect, the deposition transcripts are the
rightful property of each litigant and could have been treated by
any as confidential. In that regard, petitioner has not shown or
contended that the redacted portions of the deposition testimony
were exclusively sourced in another party in the Cinpres case.6
Additionally, petitioner does not contend that the redacted
portions of the deposition transcripts contained material that,
6 If petitioner had shown that the protected material was
exclusively sourced in another, the protective order provides for
notice to that party before production of a protected document
pursuant to another court’s order.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011