Protective orders, widely relied upon in federal civil litigation, are not automatically available, and even when in place, offer only a measure of protection against use and dissemination of information litigants may prefer to keep under wraps. Whether on an initial motion for a protective order or on a challenge to confidentiality designations made under a consensual protective order, a party seeking to limit disclosure of discovery material must make a specific showing of good cause that is often far from a foregone conclusion. Moreover, the confidentiality offered by a protective order may only be temporary, and offers no permanent assurance of non-disclosure.
Establishing ‘Good Cause’
Traditionally, parties obtained protective orders via motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which provides that for “good cause” a court may “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Increasingly, parties have followed a route entailing less up-front litigation, entering into stipulated protective orders at the commencement of discovery, which permit any party to designate materials as confidential, subject to later challenge by any other party.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
