Subscribe to this blog's feed

Categories

Archives

About

Blog powered by Typepad

Google

  • Google
    Google

    WWW
    insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com

Disclaimer

  • REMINDER: THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP. ALWAYS CONSULT THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY IN AND FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND ITS LAWS, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.
    The information provided on this site is informational, only. We cannot represent, guarantee or warrant that the information contained in this site is appropriate for the usage of any particular reader. We are independent of cross links and do not warrant their accuracy or applicability. We are located in Florida and comply with all ethical rules of the Florida Bar. Some States may require the wording "This is an advertisement" or other words or information of this nature. Reading email or Comments, or replying to email or Comments, or accepting telephone calls or returning telephone calls shall not be considered legal advice. We require that all agreements for professional services be in writing and signed by Mr. Wall, the Firm and the client, whether for Legal Services, Consulting Services, or Expert Witness.

« LENDER FORCE-PLACED INSURANCE BAD FAITH IN THE 21st CENTURY. | Main | CALIFORNIA MAGISTRATE JUDGE ENFORCES CONFIDENTIALITY CONTRACT IN DEFENDANT'S PROTECTIVE ORDER. »

April 11, 2019

THEY HUNG UP ON THE STIPULATED SECRECY ORDER.

In AT&T Corp. v. Speednet-Sem LLC, No. 18-12791, 2019 WL 1532359 (E.D. Mich. April 9, 2019), because the defendant took so long to eventually say "no" to AT&T's proposal for its stipulated protective order, the time passed for AT&T, a plaintiff in this case, to amend its complaint.

Undaunted, AT&T filed a motion for leave to file its amended complaint late.  The federal court granted AT&T's motion in this case.

But that is not the most noteworthy thing about this case.  Not at all.

The most noteworthy thing about this case in my eyes is that somebody said "no" to a stipulated protective order.

It will be interesting to see what kind of information the public may be able to access without the barrier of a stipulated umbrella protective order to stop us.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

 

Posted by on April 11, 2019 at 08:32 AM in Secrecy, Stipulated Protective Orders, Umbrella Protective Orders |

Tags: #confidential, #disclosure, #evidence, #lawsuit, #public interest, #stipulated protective orders

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.