OPINION
This аppeal presents the issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ request for a protective order in reference to confidential commercial information which plaintiff requested through interrogatories? We find that it did and that a protective order should have issued.
Plaintiff, John H. Loveall, is a paraplegic as the result of an accident which occurred while he was riding a Honda ATC-185, an all terrain cycle. Suit was filed in the Circuit Court for Knox County against the manufacturer of the vehicle, Hondа Motor Company, Ltd., and its seller and distributor, American Honda Motor Company, Ltd., alleging strict liability and violations of express and implied warranties.
In the course of discovery, рlaintiff submitted two sets of interrogatories to the defendants. Both requested information concerning the design, specifications, testing, developmental techniques, and cоmpo *939 nent parts of the ATC-185. Defendants did not seek to deny plaintiff access to the requested information, but sought, instead, to have the court issue a protective order limiting the dissemination of the information by the plaintiff. The motion for the protective order was based on the confidential nature of the requested information. Attached tо the motion was the affidavit of Ryoichi Shigenari, a senior staff engineer of Honda Research and Development Company, Ltd. (Honda R & D). The motion was denied, and a motiоn to reconsider was submitted. Attached to it was the affidavit of Osamu Takeuchi, another Honda R & D senior staff engineer. Both affidavits stated that the requested information was highly cоnfidential, was closely guarded, had been developed solely by Honda R & D, and that competitors would benefit greatly from access to this information. No affidavits were filed by plaintiff.
The trial court denied the motion to reconsider, but did approve an interlocutory appeal. An interim protective order was issued for the pendency of the appeal after the trial court found that irreparable injury would be done to the defendants if the information was released and it was held on appeаl that the protective order should have issued. The Court of Appeals did not accept the interlocutory appeal, and the appeal was then brought tо this court.
The interim protective order, which was to become permanent if the defendants prevailed on appeal, stated:
1. Plaintiff and plaintiffs attorneys shall nоt give, show or otherwise, either directly or indirectly, divulge any competitively sensitive data produced by defendants ... in this action, or the substance thereof or any coрies, descriptions, prints, negatives or summaries thereof, to any entity or person except plaintiff herein, any agents of or experts and consultants employed by рlaintiff herein, in connection with and solely for this action.
All of plaintiffs experts and consultants were under the order, and all competitively sensitive documents were to bе returned to defendants upon request at the conclusion of trial. Competitively sensitive data was defined as “information about defendants’ business, products, practices or procedures, which, in the ordinary course of business, is not voluntarily disclosed by defendants to the public or to the third persons or entities who do not have a need to know.” The order expressly covered any confidential information entered into evidence or proffered as evidence at trial.
Tennessee Rules of Civil Procеdure 26.03 provides that a trial court, for good cause shown, may issue any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including “(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way;”. This rule is substantially the same as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), and we will look to interpretations of that rule.
The decision whether or not to issue a protective order lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.
Centurion Industries, Inc. v. Wаrren Steurer and Associates,
Applying these stаndards to the present case, we conclude that the information sought by plaintiff should be protected, and that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the requested protective order. Defendants have sufficiently alleged that irreparable harm and competitive disadvantage would result if no protective order is issued. This conclusion is based on the uncontradicted affidavits of the two senior staff engineers for Honda R & D, Mr. Shigenari and Mr. Takeuchi.
We glean from their affidavits that much of the information sought by plaintiff is contained in a series оf confidential documents known as the A 0 Development Reports. These reports were developed solely by employees of Honda R & D, and they contain information concerning the unique developmental procedures, specifications, and testing used by Honda R & D in the development of new products. Included is information pеrtaining to the ATC-185, the all terrain cycle upon which plaintiff was injured. These unique procedures, standards, and tests are alleged to be major reasons for the preeminence of defendants in the production of ATCs. The information in these reports was obtained, and the reports themselves were developed, at great cost and оver many years.
In addition, access to these reports is strictly regulated. All employees are required to sign a non-disclosure statement, and less than one percent of defendants’ employees are privileged to see the documents. The reports are kept in locked cabinets, prior clearance must be obtained to enter the area where the documents are stored, and even members of the developmental team must obtain written authorization to view the documents. The оriginal reports cannot be removed from the filing area, and records are kept of all copies made.
It follows that Honda’s competitors would benefit greatly from access to information concerning the defendants’ internal procedures, standards, and testing. They would profit by being able to utilize the work product of the defendаnts without having invested the time and expense to develop production techniques on a competitive level with defendants. A protective order is necessary tо prevent the irreparable harm which would result if defendants’ competitors had access to the competitively sensitive information which plaintiff will receive. Plaintiff has failed to adequately rebut the defendants’ showing of good cause for the issuance of a protective order.
Plaintiff has also failed to show that the issuance of a protective order which limits the dissemination of information obtained through civil discovery is in violation of the First Amendment. Only a limited interest in free expression exists in information оbtained through discovery.
See International Union v. Garner,
This cause is remanded for all necessary further proceedings. Costs are taxed to appellee, John Howard Loveall.