Central Columbia School District v. Polk

holding that state common law remedies are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act | discussing in detail the grounds for issuance and modification of a Rule 26 protective order | stating that courts have the power to enforce orders at any point while the order is in effect and noting that numerous courts have allowed intervention to challenge protective orders months or years after the end of the principal litigation | “[Scheduling] orders and their enforcement are regarded as the essential mechanism for cases becoming trial-ready in an efficient, just, and certain manner. The control of these schedules is deliberately reposed in the court, and not in counsel, so that this end may be achieved” | “[Scheduling] orders and their enforcement are regarded as the essential mechanism for cases becoming trial-ready in an efficient, just, and certain manner. The control of these schedules is deliberately reposed in the court, and not in counsel, so that this end may be achieved” | “[Scheduling] orders and their enforcement are regarded as the essential mechanism for cases becoming trial-ready in an efficient, just, and certain manner. The control of these schedules is deliberately reposed in the court, and not in counsel, so that this end may be achieved.” | court must make substantive inquiry into whether proposed education program confers meaningful benefit to handicapped student | “In support of this ‘injunction,’ the district court necessarily had the power to enforce the order, at any point while the order was in effect, including periods after judgment.” | burden on moving party to show good cause