United States District Court, S.D. New York
August 16, 2005.
AURELIO MILLER, Plaintiff,
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
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
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).
For the reasons noted, plaintiff's motion for a protective
order is denied.*fn1