Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc. v. Scranton Products, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

March 8, 2017

BOBRICK WASHROOM EQUIPMENT, INC. Plaintiff,
v.
SCRANTON PRODUCTS, INC. Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge

         Pending 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 denied.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The 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).

         On two 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."[1] (Doc. 203, at 1).

         II. ANALYSIS

         In 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 embarrassment;
(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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.