United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
BOBRICK WASHROOM EQUIPMENT, INC. Plaintiff,
SCRANTON PRODUCTS, INC. Defendant.
D. Mariani United States District Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff Bobrick Washroom Equipment
Inc.'s ("Bobrick") Motion to Modify the
Protective Order currently in place in this litigation. (Doc.
203), For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs Motion will be
parties have stipulated to two protective orders in this
litigation; the original Stipulated Protective Order dated
August 11, 2014 (Doc. 31), and the Modified Stipulated
Protective Order ("MSPO") entered on March 26,
2015. (Doc. 60). The MSPO provides that each party may
designate as "Attorneys' Eyes Only"
("AEO") information "comprised of trade
secrets, confidential research and development, or other
confidential technical information." (Doc. 60, ¶
2). The MSPO also limits the disclosure of AEO information to
outside counsel for the receiving party, experts and
consultants and "one (1) in-house counsel for the
receiving party or (1) other individual designated by the
receiving party in advance of disclosure."
(Id., at ¶ 9).
prior occasions Bobrick has asked the Court to expand
Paragraph 9(d) of the Stipulated Protective Order in order to
permit it to share AEO designated information with two
individuals: Mr. Gettelman, Bobrick's Vice President of
External Affairs and current AEO designee, and Bobrick's
President and CEO Mark Louchheim. (Docs. 45, 57). The Court
has denied both requests. (Docs. 53, 88). Now, on its third
attempt, Bobrick seeks modification of the MSPO "to
permit disclosure of information designated Attorneys'
Eyes Only... to two representatives of the receiving party,
instead of one representative as in the current
order." (Doc. 203, at 1).
Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d
Cir. 1994), the Third Circuit held that a Court considering
whether to modify an existing protective order must "use
the same balancing test that is used in determining whether
to grant such orders in the first instance."
Id. at 790. A Court should grant a protective order
in the first instance where "good cause" exists,
and upon consideration of the following factors:
(1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests;
(2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate
purpose or for an improper purpose;
(3) whether disclosure of the information will cause a party
(4) whether confidentiality is being sought over information
important to public health and safety;
(5) whether the sharing of information among litigants will
promote fairness and efficiency;
(6) whether a party benefitting from the order of
confidentiality is a public ...