United States v. Baugh & Sons Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that blanket 21 orders are routinely agreed to by parties and approved by courts in commercial litigation, 22 and such orders “are essential to the functioning of civil discovery”
• if good cause existed for initial protective order, movant must show good cause to modify
• “Where . . . the modification motion is brought by a party who stipulated to a blanket protective order, the party should be held to its agreement[.]”
• nonmovant’s reliance significant where nonmovant turned over six million pages of documents under general protective order; nonmovant did not dispute broad requests in reliance on protective order, in order to expedite the case
• “[G]iven the commereially-sensitive nature of the information to be exchanged in discovery, there was ‘good cause’ for preventing party personnel from having access to the information. The parties implicitly acknowledged this by stipulating to the Protective Order.”
• “Where, however, the modification motion is brought by a party who stipulated to a blanket protective order, the party should be held to its agreement and thus should have the burden of showing good cause for its modification request.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).