United Nuclear Corporation v. Cranford Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that \ Rule 24(b)'s timeliness requirement is to prevent prejudice in the adjudication of rights of the existing parties\
• holding that post-judgment order granting intervenors’ motion for modification of protective order and for access to 4 sealed records was immediately appealable
• acknowledging that stipulated “blanket” protective orders have become “standard practice” in complex cases (citing MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION, SECOND, § 21.431 (1985)
• explaining that collateral litigants may intervene permissively and move to modify a protective order, a mechanism which exists expressly to benefit collateral litigation and “avoid[] duplicative discovery”
• allowing intervention three years after the case had been settled because intervention “was for the sole purpose of challenging a protective order”
• allowing intervention three years after settlement of case because intervention was solely for purpose of challenging protective order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).