- 13 -
in substance, requires protection, such as proprietary business
information.
The third Tucker factor concerns whether the case in which
the order was issued is still pending, and if not, the court is
to consider the burden and expense that will be incurred in order
to seek modification of the order. The District Court proceeding
was settled by the parties and is no longer pending. On this
aspect, petitioner recognizes that expense and delay would be
occasioned by an action to reopen the infringement proceeding
simply to seek modification of the protective order. Petitioner,
however, contends that it is the only avenue by which the
protective order should be approached and that this Court should
not “circumvent” the District Court’s order.
Respondent contends that he is not a party to the Cinpres
case. In addition, intervention in the Cinpres case would
require the involvement of the U.S. Department of Justice, which
would further complicate this matter and increase the expenditure
of public resources. Respondent also contends that it would be
an imposition on the District Court to interject it into a
discovery dispute in the U.S. Tax Court.
We agree with respondent. The District Court would have to
be asked, for the first time, to interpret and/or to modify an
order negotiated by the parties in a case that is now closed and
final. The additional cost in expense, time, and inconvenience
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011