IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANDREA CONSTAND : CIVIL ACTION

 : 05-1099

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR. :

:

Defendant. :

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 2

AND NOW, this 4th day of November 2005, it is hereby

ORDERED that parties seeking to compel discovery shall file those

requests as follows:

1. Each party shall file any request to compel by

November 21, 2005; 

2. Each request shall appear on a separate page,

numbered consecutively;

3. Each request shall quote the specific question and

answer given at the deposition, without argument of counsel;

4. Each question and answer shall be followed by a

pinpoint citation to the deposition transcript, together with the

legal authority supporting the request and a brief explanation;

5. The responding party shall file a response to each

request by December 6, 2005;

6. Each response shall include whether the party

objects in full, objects in part or does not object to the

request, and any objection shall be supported by legal authority

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 47 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 3
The parties in this case have taken the depositions of 1

plaintiff and defendant. By agreement of the parties, and as is

customary in civil litigation, Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart,

467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984), the depositions were taken in private. 

Certain issues have arisen, inter alia, concerning the

permissible scope of inquiry, the role of counsel at deposition

and the extent to which a witness may rely upon prior statements

in answering questions. The issues have been brought to the

Court’s attention by way of letters from counsel to the Court. 

The Court has reviewed the transcripts of the depositions and

conferred with the parties.

2

and a brief explanation;

7. Each response shall be on a separate page, numbered

to correspond with the request to which it pertains;

8. The parties requesting discovery may file a

memorandum of law addressing overarching issues, i.e. attorneyclient privilege, Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525 (E.D.

Pa. 1993), and Applied Telematics, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., No. 94-

4603, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2191 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1995), type

of objections, as well as a summary of the arguments in the

requests to compel; and 

9. Any party opposing the lifting of the seal shall

show cause why the seal should not be lifted by filing a

memorandum of law by December 21, 2005. Any party supporting the

lifting of the seal shall file a memorandum of law by January 9,

2006. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all requests for discovery,

responses and legal memoranda filed pursuant to this order shall

be filed UNDER SEAL. 

1

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 47 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 3
The Court has previously recognized the common law

right of access to judicial proceedings in a civil case. See

Constand v. Cosby, 229 F.R.D. 472, 478 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (citing

Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1066 (3d Cir.

1984)). Concomitantly, the Court has also recognized that the

public’s right of access is not absolute, id. at 479 (citing In

re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001)), and may be

limited or conditioned upon a showing of good cause. Id. at 479

(citing Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.

1995)). The burden is on the party seeking to limit discovery. 

See id. (citing Glenmede Trust Co., 56 F.3d at 483). 

It is in the context of a discovery dispute that Court

again is called upon to balance the private and public interests

implicated in this case. The purpose of this protocol is to

develop a record upon which the Court may calibrate the scales

upon which the proper balancing of private and public interests

may take place. See id. (citing Glenmede Trust Co., 56 F.3d at

483). 

3

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 47 Filed 11/04/05 Page 3 of 3