United States Ninth Circuit

District court's order granting KPMG's motion to intervene and modify a protective order is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the motion to intervene was timely because even though the underlying litigation had concluded, motions to intervene for the purpose of seeking modification of a protective order are not untimely; 2) granting the motion to intervene did not unfairly prejudice the plaintiff; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that the deposition transcript be placed in escrow rather than destroyed where the district court determined that the transcript remained relevant to the collateral state court proceedings.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/11/2013
• Published 04/11/2013

Judges

• BLUM

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel