Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): seek in this litigation, which I have determined to be relevant to this case, fall within its scope. Resolution of this issue depends on principles of federalism, comity and courtesy, as well as an evaluation of the nature of the Order, and practical matters such as where the court should allocate the burden and expense of seeking modification of the Order. There seems to be little doubt that a protective order issued by a court, either state or federal, which on its face survives the underlying litigation, continues to have full force and effect on the parties subject to it even after final resolution of the underlying case, and the issuing court retains jurisdiction and authority to modify or revoke it. See Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, 858 F.2d 775, 780-82 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); see also United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the inherent power of the district court includes the power  to santion attorneys for  violations of court orders or other conduct which interferes with the courts power to manage its calendar and the courtroom   (B) holding that the issuing court necessarily has the power to enforce a protective order it issued at any point it is in effect even after entry of a final judgment and courts enjoy the inherent power to modify any discovery related orders postjudgment (C) recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it (D) holding that this court has power to direct the entry of summary judgment when it would be just under the circumstances (E) recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
Output (English): holding that the inherent power of the district court includes the power  to santion attorneys for  violations of court orders or other conduct which interferes with the courts power to manage its calendar and the courtroom