Opinion
01 Civ. 3016 (AGS) (HBP)
October 7, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Tribune Entertainment, Inc. seeks a protective order limiting dissemination of its insurance policy to outside counsel for plaintiff. For the reasons set forth below, Tribune's application is denied.
There can be no dispute that insurance agreements are discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(D). Furthermore, there can be no dispute that a showing of "good cause" is required before a protective order may be issued, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), and that the party seeking the issuance of a protective order bears the burden of demonstrating "good cause." DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997); Dove v. Atlantic Capital Corp., 963 F.2d 15, 19 (2d Cir. 1992); Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 663 F.2d 371, 391 (2d Cir. 1981). In this case, Tribune claims that disclosure of its insurance coverage to plaintiff's principals will give plaintiff an unfair competitive advantage. Tribune, however, has not explained what this competitive advantage is. To the extent Tribune suggests that the disclosure of the insurance policy will establish Tribune's ability to pay adverse judgments and thereby make it more of a target of opportunity to plaintiff, Tribune's argument makes no sense. Given its size and national stature, Tribune would be perceived by plaintiff, or anyone else for that matter, as being far from judgment-proof. The details of its insurance coverage will not alter that perception.
Since a party seeking a protective order must make "a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements," 8 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice Procedure, § 2035 at 484 (2d Ed. 1994), I conclude that Tribune has not made the required showing and, therefore, that it is not entitled to a protective order limiting the dissemination of its insurance policy.