The STATE of Minnesota, by Hubert H. HUMPHREY III, its Attorney General, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Respondents,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al., Appellants,
B.A.T. Industries, p.l.c., Appellant,
British-American Tobacco Company Limited, et al., Appellants,
Liggett Group, Inc., Defendant.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
February 22, 2000.
Review Denied April 25, 2000.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Michael V. Ciresi, Roberta B. Walburn, Gary L. Wilson, Vincent J. Moccio, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Minneapolis, for respondents.
James S. Simonson, Dean A. LeDoux, Jonathan M. Redgrave, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, for appellant R.J. Reynolds.
Kenneth S. Geller, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Washington, DC; and Peter W. Sipkins, Paul Dieseth, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, for appellant Philip Morris Incorporated.
R. Lawrence Purdy, Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, Minneapolis, for appellant Council for Tobacco Research.
David G. Martin, Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, LLP, Minneapolis, for appellant Lorillard Tobacco Co.
George W. Flynn, Hal Shillingstad, Cosgrove, Flynn, Gaskins & O'Connor, Minneapolis, for appellant Tobacco Institute.
Byron E. Starns, John W. Getsinger, Leonard, Street and Deinard, P.A., Minneapolis; and Arthur C. Fahlbusch, Jr., Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York, N.Y. for appellants British-American Tobacco Company Limited and B.A.T. (U.K. and Export) Limited.
Patrick D. Bonner, Jr., Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, New York, N.Y.; and Richard G. Jensen, Fabyanske, Westra & Hart, Minneapolis, for appellant B.A.T. Industries.
Peter J. Smith, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States of America.
Jack M. Fribley, Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis (for appellant Brown & Williamson).
Considered and decided by TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge, LANSING, Judge, KALITOWSKI, Judge, KLAPHAKE, Judge, AMUNDSON, Judge, HARTEN, Judge, and SHUMAKER, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellants, domestic and British tobacco companies and tobacco organizations, challenge the district court's decision to lift its earlier protective orders after the completion of litigation and allow public access to certain documents produced during discovery. They argue that the court failed to use the proper standard in reaching its decision to modify the protective orders. Even if the proper standard was used, appellants...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
