281 F.R.D. 507
D. Utah2012Background
- BYU moved for permission to disclose confidential Pfizer documents to Teva under the Protective Order.
- Designated Documents are labeled confidential or highly confidential and thus restricted from sharing with Teva.
- Teva seeks to review the documents for potential licensing and upfront payment negotiations with BYU.
- Court held expedited argument on February 28, 2012.
- Court denies BYU’s motion, finding no good cause to modify the Protective Order.
- Protective Order allows modification only on good cause; modification for business purposes required strong justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BYU demonstrated good cause to modify the Protective Order. | BYU argues reasonable need for due diligence with Teva. | Pfizer contends modification would harm confidentiality and competitiveness. | BYU fails to show good cause; modification denied. |
| Whether the documents are judicial documents or subject to public access presumption. | BYU asserts presumptions for judicial documents apply. | Pfizer argues business purpose outweighs access presumption. | Even if considered judicial documents, countervailing factors weigh against disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2006) (presumption of public access for judicial documents; balancing may apply)
- United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir. 1990) (reasonable-need standard for protective-order modification)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 210 F.R.D. 163 (M.D.N.C.2002) (approaches to protective orders and discovery)
- S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) (public access to judicial documents; balancing confidentiality)
- Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) (protective-order considerations and standard tests)