Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

73 Citing cases

  1. Murata Manufacturing Co. v. Bel Fuse, Inc.

    234 F.R.D. 175 (N.D. Ill. 2006)   Cited 47 times
    Enforcing protective order as to defendant's customers

    It should be no surprise that, there having been good cause to enter the protective order in the first place, there must be good cause shown before it can be vacated. Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. 162 F.R.D. 456, 460 (S.D.N.Y.1995); Lee Shuknecht & Sons, Inc. v. P. Vigneri & Sons, Inc., 927 F.Supp. 610, 614 (W.D.N.Y.1996); Alexander et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 99, 100 (D.D.C.1998). And it is the burden of the party seeking to vacate or modify the protective order-here, Murata-to demonstrate good cause.

  2. Raytheon Company v. Indigo Systems Corp.

    Case No. 4:07-cv-109 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 17, 2008)   Cited 4 times

    . This court hereby adopts the sound logic employed by the court in Bayer AG v. Barr Lab., 162 F.R.D. 456, 460-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) in considering the status of the entity requesting modification of a protective order (either a party or non-party, private or governmental litigant) and the motivations for such a request (either private or public interest factors).

  3. Merchants Bank v. Vescio

    222 B.R. 236 (D. Vt. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    Two lines of decisions have been discerned from these cases. See Bayer Ag and Miles, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 456, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). In cases involving non-party government intervention, the Circuit generally requires the governmental entity to show extraordinary circumstances or a compelling need, or improvidence in the granting of the protective order.

  4. Peoples v. Aldine Independent School District

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-2818 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 19, 2008)   Cited 9 times

    In determining whether to modify a protective order, courts consider four factors: "1) the nature of the protective order, (2) the foreseeability, at the time of issuance of the order, of the modification requested, (3) the parties' reliance on the order; and most significantly (4) whether good cause exists for the modification." Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 175, 179 (N.D. Ill. 2006); accord Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 162 F.R.D. 456, 458 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). When evaluating the nature of a protective order, courts consider "its scope and whether it was court imposed or stipulated to by the parties."

  5. Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc.

    Civil Action 24-228 (E.D. La. Dec. 9, 2024)

    The court enjoys wide discretion in setting the parameters of a protective order.Id. (quoting Bayer AG & Miles, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 162 F.R.D. 456, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), overruled on other grounds by S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001)). Id. (citation omitted).

  6. Rogers v. Tallahatchie Gourmet, LLC

    3:19-CV-142-GHD-JMV (N.D. Miss. Mar. 16, 2022)

    Id. at *2 (quoting Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 162 F.R.D. 456, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). The nature of the subject PO weighs against the modification request.

  7. Patrick v. Martin

    2:16-CV-216-D (N.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Courts have looked to four factors to guide consideration of whether a modification is appropriate, including: "(1) the nature of the protective order; (2) the foreseeability, at the time of issuance of the order, of the modification requested; (3) the reliance on the order; and (4) whether good cause exists for the modification." Murata Mfg. Co. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 175, 179 (N.D. Ill. 2006); In re Enron Corp. Secs., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 2009 WL 3247432, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2009); Bayer AG & Miles, Inc. v. Barr Labs, Inc. 162 F.R.D. 456, 458 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). As to the first factor, relevant to the nature of a confidentiality order is "its scope and whether it was court imposed or stipulated to by the parties."

  8. Royal v. Boykin

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-176-GHD-RP (N.D. Miss. Dec. 14, 2018)

    "A party's prior consent to the protective order will weigh against its motion for modification." Peoples, 2008 WL 2571900 at *2 (quoting Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 162 F.R.D. 456, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). The nature of the subject protective orders weighs against Boykin's modification request.

  9. Dean v. Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr.

    No. 3:16-cv-2635-M (N.D. Tex. Sep. 25, 2017)   Cited 3 times

    See United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); In re United States' Motion to Modify Sealing Orders, No. 5:03-mc-2, 2004 WL 5584146, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2004). Courts have looked to four factors to guide consideration of whether a modification is appropriate, including: "(1) the nature of the protective order; (2) the foreseeability, at the time of issuance of the order, of the modification requested; (3) the reliance on the order; and (4) whether good cause exists for the modification." Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 175, 179 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (citation omitted); accord In re Enron Corp. Secs., Derivative & ERISA Litig., No. MDL-1466, 2009 WL 3247432, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2009); Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. v. Barr Labs, Inc. 162 F.R.D. 456, 458 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). As to the first factor, relevant to the nature of a confidentiality order is "'its scope and whether it was court imposed or stipulated to by the parties.'"

  10. Lewis v. Tex. Instruments Inc.

    No. 3:12-cv-4577-L-BN (N.D. Tex. Jun. 23, 2014)

    See United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); In re United States' Motion to Modify Sealing Orders, NO. 5:03-MC-2, 2004 WL 5584146, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2004). Courts have looked to four factors to guide consideration of whether a modification is appropriate, including: "(1) the nature of the protective order; (2) the foreseeability, at the time of issuance of the order, of the modification requested; (3) the reliance on the order; and (4) whether good cause exists for the modification." Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 175, 179 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (citation omitted); accord In re Enron Corp. Secs., Derivative & ERISA Litig., No. MDL-1466, 2009 WL 3247432, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2009); Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. v. Barr Labs, Inc. 162 F.R.D. 456, 458 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). As to the first factor, relevant to the nature of a confidentiality order is "'its scope and whether it was court imposed or stipulated to by the parties.'"