Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

MILLER v. PHILLIPS BRYANT PARK

United States District Court, S.D. New York


August 16, 2005.

AURELIO MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
PHILLIPS BRYANT PARK, LLC, et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MICHAEL DOLINGER, Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Plaintiff has moved for a protective order in connection with the disclosure of a series of audio tapes that he used to record conversations with various employees of the defendant during his employment. Having received a response from defendants and a reply from plaintiff's counsel, we now briefly address the motion.

In view of prior rulings by the court, much of what plaintiff asks for appears to be moot. He seems concerned principally with avoiding the necessity of turning over to defendants' attorney the original tapes, and we have already addressed that matter by directing that the originals were to be professionally copied, and the copies provided to defendants. (See Memorandum & Orders dated Aug. 1, 2005). Accordingly, that aspect of plaintiff's motion is moot. According to plaintiff's notice of motion, he also seeks to limit the use or circulation of any tape-recorded statements, which he refers to as confidential materials. In connection with this request, he asks for an order requiring the return of materials reflecting these conversations at the conclusion of the litigation.

  Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires an applicant for a protective order to demonstrate "good cause". Although plaintiff submits two declarations in support of his motion, neither offers any facts that would permit us to conclude that the materials at issue contain confidential information. Under the circumstances, we see no basis for entry of an order limiting the defendants' use or circulation of these materials. See generally s.a.r.l. Orliac v. Berthe, 765 F.2d 30, 31 (2d Cir. 1985); Note, "Nonparty Access to Discovery Materials in the Federal Courts," 94 Harv. L. Rev. 1085, 1089-90 (1981).

  CONCLUSION

  For the reasons noted, plaintiff's motion for a protective order is denied.*fn1


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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