Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-1975.
December 23, 2008
ORDER
The parties have moved for the entry of a protective order. Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a district court to enter a protective order on a showing of good cause. It is well established that "[t]he party seeking a protective order [under Rule 26(c)] has the burden of showing that good cause exists for issuance of that order." Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 821 F.2d 139, 145 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 113, 115 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). In the absence of such a protective order, "parties to a law suit may disseminate materials obtained during discovery as they see fit." Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 1994); see also San Jose Mercury News v. U.S. District Court-Northern District (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999); Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775, 789 (1st Cir. 1988); Agent Orange, 821 F.2d at 145-46.
The parties have submitted a proposed protective order but have not information as to what will be designated as confidential or shown good cause for the entry of a protective order. The parties may file a supplemental motion by January 9, 2009, explaining why the proposed protective order should be entered.