- 14 -
of the courts and the parties to seek review by the court that
issued the order is not warranted in this setting.
The final factor concerns whether this Court, by
incorporating similar terms and protections in our order, could
continue the protections originally approved in the District
Court’s order. On that point, petitioner argues that neither
petitioner nor respondent has moved this Court for such a
protective order. Petitioner’s concern is that the Cinpres case
involved patent infringement and the possible need to protect any
proprietary business information. In that regard, the District
Court’s protective order appears to adequately provide for
protection of any proprietary business information. If we
incorporate the terms of the District Court’s protective order
into an order compelling the production of the requested
deposition materials, the same obligations and restrictions will
be imposed, with the exception that they will now be imposed on
respondent. We see no reason why the terms of the District
Court’s protective order cannot be incorporated into this Court’s
order compelling any production of materials from the Cinpres
case.
As explained, the information respondent seeks is relevant
to the issues we consider. It would be unjust to permit
petitioner continued access to this type of information with no
access to respondent. Another approach to remedying this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011