Keeney

Keeney v. John Crane, Inc. CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 19, 2014B245739California6,639 words

Opinion

Opinion

Willhite, J.

BACKGROUND

We set forth in detail the procedural history leading to the imposition of sanctions against the Firm because there was much confusion regarding the scope of the protective order at issue. That confusion arose because Crane’s counsel told the court it was going to produce documents subject to a protective order but counsel failed to actually obtain a written protective order, and the trial court assumed when it ordered counsel to turn over those documents “under the protective order” that an actual written order was in place. In fact, no enforceable protective order existed until more than a month after the documents were produced.

A. Crane Produces Documents Containing Private Financial Information On January 17, 2012,2 the jury was deliberating in the first phase of the trial in plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Crane. A few days earlier, the trial court had ordered Crane to produce financial records in the event the jury returned with a verdict finding that plaintiffs were entitled to punitive damages. An attorney for Crane,

2 Further references to dates are to the year 2012, unless otherwise specified.

3 Mr. Schirm, appeared before the court on January 17 and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.