American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grady, Nos. 78-2316

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and WOOD; PER CURIAM
Citation594 F.2d 594
Parties1979-1 Trade Cases 62,488 AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Petitioners, v. Honorable John F. GRADY, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Respondent. MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Defendants-Appellants.
Decision Date14 December 1978
Docket NumberNos. 78-2316,78-2317

Page 594

594 F.2d 594
1979-1 Trade Cases 62,488
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Illinois Bell
Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company, Petitioners,
v.
Honorable John F. GRADY, Judge of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Respondent.
MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Illinois Bell
Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 78-2316, 78-2317.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Nov. 20, 1978.
Decided Dec. 14, 1978. *
Opinion March 1, 1979.
Certiorari Denied March 26, 1979. See 99 S.Ct. 1533.

Page 595

George L. Saunders, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.

Robert B. Nicholson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Chester T. Kamin, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In the instant appeal and conditional petition for writ of mandamus appellant-petitioner challenges the propriety of an order of the district court granting the motion of the United States of America to modify a protective order which governed the use of discovered materials in MCI Communications Corp. v. ATT, 462 F.Supp. 1072. We hereby affirm the trial court's order.

I. The Procedural History

MCI Communications Corporation, a communications common carrier engaged in providing private line communications services, filed suit against the American Telephone & Telegraph Company and its affiliates on March 6, 1974, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. On August 6, 1974, the district court entered a protective order to govern the subsequent use of "all documents and other discovery materials produced in response to any documents request made upon plaintiffs or defendants in the . . . (case) . . . and to any deposition or portion of a deposition as to which confidential status is requested by either party." The protective order was entered at the request and signed consent of the parties. From 1974 to the present, discovery on the parties has proceeded pursuant to the terms of the protective order. Discovery from nonparties has proceeded pursuant to other protective orders entered by the district court which expressly provided that the discovery materials obtained thereunder may be used solely in the preparation for trial in MCI v. ATT.

On November 20, 1974, the United States filed its Section 2 Sherman Act suit against ATT in the District of Columbia. Three stays of this suit, one on motion of the United States of America, one on motion of ATT, and one on the Court's own motion interfered with the pace of discovery until November 28, 1978.

On November 17, 1977, nonparty United States of America moved in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for modification of the protective order entered in MCI v. ATT on August 6, 1974, in order to allow the government access to all of the materials discovered in the MCI case. The government alleged that its action encompassed "virtually all of the anticompetitive practices of which plaintiffs complain here," and that the government would be able to gain access to those documents via discovery in the District of Columbia case but that immediate access would save time and money.

On September 11, 1978, Judge Greene granted the government's motion to permit access to discovery in USA v. ATT thus requiring MCI to provide to the government all documents "produced by defendants and requested by plaintiffs" in Litton Systems, Inc. v. ATT, No. 76 Civ. 2512 (S.D.N.Y.) and MCI Communications Corp. v. ATT, 462 F.Supp. 1072 (N.D.Ill.). ATT filed a writ of mandamus in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals naming Judge Greene as respondent in an attempt to gain review of this order. On October 31, 1978, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied the writ of mandamus but granted a stay for 48 hours pending application for certiorari and for emergency stay to the Supreme Court. ATT filed its emergency petition to the Supreme Court and a temporary stay was granted by Chief Justice Burger pending the filing of a response by the government. The Supreme Court later declined to continue the stay pending the disposition of the filed writ of certiorari. --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 447, 58 L.Ed.2d 420 (1978). MCI...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 practice notes
  • Bond v. Utreras, No. 07-2651.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • November 10, 2009
    ...compelling reasons exist for denying the public access to the proceedings,'" Wilk, 635 F.2d at 1299 (quoting Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir.1978)), they have been superseded by the 2000 amendment to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See infra pp. 1075......
  • Tavoulareas v. Washington Post Co., No. 83-1688
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 15, 1984
    ...in discovery"); Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n, 635 F.2d 1295, 1299 (7th Cir.1980) (quoting American Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir.1978)) ("[a]s a general proposition, pretrial discovery must take place in the [sic] public unless compelling reasons exist f......
  • Minitube of Am., Inc. v. Reprod. Provisions, LLC, Case No. 13-CV-685-JPS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • May 1, 2014
    ...reminds the parties that the presumption is that litigation must occur in the public eye. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 1979); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945-46 (7th Cir. 1999......
  • Essential Communications Systems, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., No. 78-2521
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • November 23, 1979
    ...immunity for communications carriers and interconnection should not be impliedly immune) Aff'd sub nom. American Tel & Tel. Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, Cert. denied, American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. MCI Communications Corp., 440 U.S. 971, 99 S.Ct. 1533, 59 L.Ed.2d 787 (1979); Jarvis v. American ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
107 cases
  • Bond v. Utreras, No. 07-2651.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • November 10, 2009
    ...compelling reasons exist for denying the public access to the proceedings,'" Wilk, 635 F.2d at 1299 (quoting Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir.1978)), they have been superseded by the 2000 amendment to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See infra pp. 1075......
  • Tavoulareas v. Washington Post Co., No. 83-1688
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 15, 1984
    ...in discovery"); Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n, 635 F.2d 1295, 1299 (7th Cir.1980) (quoting American Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir.1978)) ("[a]s a general proposition, pretrial discovery must take place in the [sic] public unless compelling reasons exist f......
  • Minitube of Am., Inc. v. Reprod. Provisions, LLC, Case No. 13-CV-685-JPS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • May 1, 2014
    ...reminds the parties that the presumption is that litigation must occur in the public eye. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 1979); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945-46 (7th Cir. 1999......
  • Essential Communications Systems, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., No. 78-2521
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • November 23, 1979
    ...immunity for communications carriers and interconnection should not be impliedly immune) Aff'd sub nom. American Tel & Tel. Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, Cert. denied, American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. MCI Communications Corp., 440 U.S. 971, 99 S.Ct. 1533, 59 L.Ed.2d 787 (1979); Jarvis v. American ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT