Back to Results

DOJ-OGR-00004938.jpg

Source: IMAGES  •  Size: 676.2 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 92.6%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 15 of 27 To Be Filed Under Seal Order itself facilitated or furthered criminal activity; and the record contains no evidence of bad faith. The second way in which a protective order might be “improvidently granted” is if the presiding judge did not require the moving party to show “good cause” for entering an order that permitted documents to be filed with the court under seal. It was long the law that the parties needed to make a document-by-document showing of good cause whenever discovery materials were filed with the court under seal. Jn re Agent Orange Prod. Liab, Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 148 (2d Cir. 1987) (Agent Orange). In recent years, however, the Second Circuit has relaxed the Rule 26(c) “good cause” showing for discovery materials that are never filed with the court, in light of changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 233 n.11. The new, more lax standard recognizes that, “Without an ability to restrict public dissemination of certain discovery materials that are never introduced at trial, litigants would be subject to needless annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 F. App’x 878, 881 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary order) (emphasis added) (quoting TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229). As a result, the “good cause” showing necessary for entry of a blanket pretrial protective order like the one entered in Giuffre is not onerous. Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 67 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). “[W]here “a protective order (1) is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c), (2) is limited to the context of pretrial civil discovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources,” it is not improvidently granted. Jd. (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNet.com, Inc. v. FragranceX.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at *4 14 SDNY_GM_00000888 DOJ-OGR- 00004938 j 34 i i ] i i | i i I 1

Document Preview

DOJ-OGR-00004938.jpg

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename DOJ-OGR-00004938.jpg
File Size 676.2 KB
OCR Confidence 92.6%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,101 characters
Indexed 2026-02-03 16:54:48.536226