Global Material Technologies, Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co., 133 F. Supp. 3d 1079

GMT sues DNZ, Tru Group, and Dong Jue Min in a diversity suit over misappropriation of GMT trade secrets and GMT customer information.
GMT alleges DNZ and Tru Group used GMT’s confidential pricing and customer data to lure GMT’s customers away.
A two-tiered protective order in Tennessee governs confidential material, allowing Attorneys’ Eyes Only (AEO) designations for sensitive information.
GMT moves to remove AEO designations on Tru Group’s documents (R. 238) and on Federal-Mogul-produced documents (R. 246).
DNZ and Tru Group represented they wound down operations starting in 2011, raising questions about ongoing competition or value of AEO materials; GMT argues the information is stale and should be treated as confidential rather than AEO.
The court analyzes good-cause standards for protective orders and whether removal to a less restrictive designation is warranted for the challenged documents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AEO designation on Tru Group documents should be removed	AEO is unwarranted; documents are stale and no longer give competitive advantage	AEO protects confidential pricing and relationships; disclosure harms Tru Group/Federal-Mogul	Granted; AEO designation downgraded to confidential for the two Tru Group groups of documents.
Whether AEO designation on Federal-Mogul documents should be narrowed	AEO overbroad; nonparties’ information can be reviewed with clients	Nonparty status allows a reduced good-cause standard; most samples justify AEO	In part granted; certain group exhibits redesignated to confidential where appropriate; other portions kept as AEO.
Whether staleness and ongoing market relevance affect good cause for AEO	Even old data can influence current competition; should not be treated as stale	Staleness defeats ongoing competitive harm; data can be extrapolated to future strategies	Court requires particularized showing of ongoing harm; in many cases data deemed stale did not support AEO reduction.
Whether confidentiality provisions with third parties justify AEO	Supply agreements do not automatically justify withholding information	Confidentiality clauses support AEO to protect third-party interests	Rejected as sole basis; other factors still required to meet good cause; some relief granted but not on general confidentiality alone.

Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2000) (public litigation openness and need for good cause in protective orders)
Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1986) (harm must be clearly defined; generic harm not sufficient for protective orders)