Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

IN RE ENRON CORP. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE "ERISA" LITIGATION; MARK NEWBY, et al., vs. ENRON CORP., et al.; PAMELA M. TITTLE, et al., vs. ENRON CORP., et al

PROTECTIVE ORDER

MELINDA HARMON, District Judge

On May 27, 2003, Citrus Corp. and Northern Border Partners, L.P. moved to protect their privileged, confidential and proprietary documents, which have been or may in the future be placed in the Document Depository created in this case. No opposition to the motion has been filed by any party or other interested person. The motion is GRANTED, subject to further order of this Court, and without prejudice to the right of any party and any interested member of the public to challenge the secreting of particular documents.

Although not defendants in the case, and although not given formal notice of the Court's March 28, 2003 Order, Movants conformed in all respects with the Court's requirements that a person seeking protection must in good faith move for a particularized protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) and therein describe a properly demarcated category of legitimately confidential information. Based on (1) Movants' showing that good cause exists to protect the confidential, privileged, and proprietary information of Citrus Corp. and Northern Border Partners, L.P. from public disclosure because harm may be done to significant assets of the Enron Corp. estate, (2) Movants' showing of diligent efforts, after receipt of actual notice, to comply with this Court's previous orders, (3) the fact that documents in the Document Depository have been presently demarcated by Enron Corp. as presumptively confidential documents in good faith, and (4) the fact that no party or other interested person has filed any opposition to the motion, Movants' presumptively confidential documents should be, and hereby are, protected from disclosure pending further order of the Court.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES
(Jan 5, 2004)