Carter
Olympic Refining Co. v. Carter
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Hamley, J.
This proceeding was brought to vacate three protective orders entered in a Government antitrust suit, so that access could be gained to certain documents now withheld from public scrutiny. The district court entered an order denying the motion to vacate the protective orders, and this review was then instituted.
On February 28, 1958, Olympic Refining Company (Olympic) brought a treble-damage antitrust suit, referred to herein as the “Olympic case,” against Standard Oil Company of California (Standard), and General Petroleum Corporation (General), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 1 On May 29, 1963, Olympic gave notice in that case that on a specified date in Los Angeles, it would take the pretrial deposition of Stanley E. Disney, an official of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice.
On June 3, 1963, the clerk of the Unit-ed States District Court for the Southern District of California, acting upon re-quest of Olympic made pursuant to Rule 45(d) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, issued a subpoena duces tecum to Disney, requiring him to produce certain described documents at the deposition hear-ing referred to…