Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): protected by the Order Amending Protective Order in the Dairyland litigation, sanctions are also appropriate pursuant to the court’s inherent power to enforce its own orders. C. Appropriate Remedies or Sanctions 1. Defendant’s Requests for a Return of All Documents and Bar Against Their Future Use Defendant has asked that the court impose three remedies or sanctions: 1) to require counsel for PG & E to return or certify the destruction of all protected documents, 2) to bar PG & E from using any of the protected documents in future proceedings in this case, and 3) to award recovery of all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred due to PG & E’s violation. Def.’s Br. 3-4. As authority for its first request, defendant cites Kramer v. Boeing Co., 134 F.R.D. 256, 258-59 (D.Minn.1991) (<HOLDING>), and for its second request defendant cites 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant has the right to an order permitting him to inspect his own written or recorded statements absent a basis for a protective order (B) holding that the public records act does not mandate disclosure of documents sealed by a protective order entered pursuant to the tennessee rules of civil procedure (C) holding that production of documents without seeking a protective order waives the right to such an order unless there is a showing of good cause for the delay (D) holding for the purposes of the california public records act that a city disclosed all documents in a reasonably timely manner when records that had not been in the citys possession or could not be found were promptly disclosed when they were found or became available (E) holding that counsel for kramer must return or destroy all documents disclosed under a protective order
Output (English): holding that the public records act does not mandate disclosure of documents sealed by a protective order entered pursuant to the tennessee rules of civil procedure