Opinion
1:23-mc-00037
06-04-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. EATON CORPORATION, Respondent.
ORDER
James S. Gwin, United States District Court Judge
On May 16, 2024, the Court granted the government's motion to enforce an IRS subpoena against Respondent Eaton Corporation and entered judgment. The Court ordered Eaton to produce certain foreign employee evaluations. And the Court ordered the parties to file a proposed protective order describing how those evaluations could be redacted.
Docs. 22, 23.
On May 30, 2024, the parties filed a joint status report. In the status report, the parties said that they could not agree on redaction scope. The government filed a proposed protective order, but Eaton did not.
Doc. 24.
Doc. 25.
In the joint status report, Respondent Eaton also said that it planned to file a postjudgment motion and, depending on the post-judgment motion's outcome, an appeal.Notwithstanding Eaton's plan to file a post-judgment motion and appeal, Eaton agreed to produce evaluations for its India-based employees. But Eaton asked the Court not to enforce the Court's judgment as to Eaton's European employee evaluations pending Eaton's anticipated post-judgment motion and potential appeal.
Doc. 24.
The parties shall proceed as follows:
• Eaton shall file its own proposed protective order by June 7, 2024. The Court will resolve the parties' disagreements over redaction scope by reviewing the parties' competing protective orders.
• The government shall file a response to Eaton's request to stay execution of judgment as to the European employee evaluations by June 7, 2024.
• Eaton shall file any post-judgment motion by June 17, 2024. Any opposition will be due by July 1, 2024. Any reply will be due by July 8, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.