Opinion
04 Civ. 3024 (BSJ) (MHD).
August 16, 2005
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff has moved for a protective order in connection with the disclosure of a series of audio tapes that he used to record conversations with various employees of the defendant during his employment. Having received a response from defendants and a reply from plaintiff's counsel, we now briefly address the motion.
In view of prior rulings by the court, much of what plaintiff asks for appears to be moot. He seems concerned principally with avoiding the necessity of turning over to defendants' attorney the original tapes, and we have already addressed that matter by directing that the originals were to be professionally copied, and the copies provided to defendants. (See Memorandum Orders dated Aug. 1, 2005). Accordingly, that aspect of plaintiff's motion is moot.
According to plaintiff's notice of motion, he also seeks to limit the use or circulation of any tape-recorded statements, which he refers to as confidential materials. In connection with this request, he asks for an order requiring the return of materials reflecting these conversations at the conclusion of the litigation.
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires an applicant for a protective order to demonstrate "good cause". Although plaintiff submits two declarations in support of his motion, neither offers any facts that would permit us to conclude that the materials at issue contain confidential information. Under the circumstances, we see no basis for entry of an order limiting the defendants' use or circulation of these materials.See generally s.a.r.l. Orliac v. Berthe, 765 F.2d 30, 31 (2d Cir. 1985); Note, "Nonparty Access to Discovery Materials in the Federal Courts," 94 Harv. L. Rev. 1085, 1089-90 (1981).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons noted, plaintiff's motion for a protective order is denied.
In counsel's respective submissions, they engage in a continuing debate about a number of matters that are extraneous to the motion that they are purportedly addressing. We refrain from any comment about their respective positions on these matters of historical disputation.