Court Opinion

ID: 9520554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:43:39.594829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:26.148571
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SIMON, concurring: I concur with the majority’s wise disposition of the propriety and scope of the protective order in this case, and with the test it suggests Judge Duff use on the remand in assessing whether any change is to be made in that order. However, I believe the majority opinion should have included directions to Judge Duff to reinstate one part of Judge Bieschke’s order, the portion requiring production of the reports and films requested by plaintiff in Chicago rather than at GMC’s offices in Michigan. The place of production is a matter of convenience to the parties rather than a safeguard that GMC requires for its protection; it is at most a part of the background against which any protective order that is entered must operate. The circumstances underlying Judge Bieschke’s order regarding the place of production are not alleged to have changed, and no new facts bearing on the issue have come to light. Under the test set forth in the majority opinion, Judge Duffs order altering the place of production was an abuse of discretion and should be expunged without further consideration of the proper place for production.