Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Bond v. Utreras, No. 07-2651

By FindLaw Staff on November 10, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

An independent journalist's petition for permission to intervene to challenge a protective order that prohibited public disclosure of confidential voluminous materials relating to citizen complaints against the officers  after a plaintiff's settlement against the city of Chicago and several members of its police department, district court's order simultaneously granting the journalist's request to intervene and lifting the order in its entirety is vacated because the petition to intervene should have been dismissed for lack of standing where: 1) the controversy originally supporting the court's jurisdiction no longer existed at the time the court acted on the petition; 2) the parties had settled; 3) the case was dismissed with prejudice; and 4) neither plaintiff nor the city asked the court to revisit and modify the terms of the protective order postjudgment.  Furthermore, the district court lacked any alternative jurisdictional basis to revisit and revoke the protective order sua sponte as there is no presumption of public access emanating from Rule 26(c)'s good cause requirement for discovery that is not party of the court file.     

Read Bond v. Utreras, No. 07-2651

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Decided November 10, 2009


Before:  Kanne, Sykes, and Tinder, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Sykes, Circuit Judge

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard