MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently before the Court in this diversity negligence and defamation action is Plaintiff Edward Woodson’s (“Woodson” or “Plaintiff”) motion to vacate a confidentiality order concerning Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s (“Home Depot” or “Defendant”) production of certain video surveillance footage (the “Video”). See Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Confidentiality Order (“Plaintiff’s Motion” or “Pl. Mot.”), Docket Entry (“DE”) [19]. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to vacate this Court’s September 28, 2023 order that Defendant produce the Video on a confidential basis to be used only for the purposes of this litigation (the “Confidentiality Order”). See id. Home Depot opposes. See Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (“Opposition” or “Opp.”), DE [21]. The Court notes that although Plaintiff’s Motion was submitted as a motion to vacate a protective order, the Court will treat the motion as Defendant’s motion for a protective order. The Confidentiality Order was issued to ensure that this litigation could proceed on the merits pending a final determination regarding the production of the Video. Accordingly, and as described in more detail below, the burden is on Defendant to demonstrate why a protective order limiting the use of the Video is appropriate. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to meet that burden, and as a result, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted, and the Confidentiality Order is vacated. I. BACKGROUND By way of Complaint filed in the New York Supreme Court for Nassau County on December 23, 2021, Plaintiff asserts various state law tort claims against Defendant, alleging that an unidentified employee of Home Depot assaulted Woodson at one of Defendant’s retail locations in Hempstead, New York. See Complaint (“Compl.”), DE [1-1], at
