United States District Court, D. Kansas
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS
KENNETH G. GALE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court are the parties motions for a Protective
Order (Docs. 30, 32). Having reviewed the submissions of the
parties, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 30) is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part. Defendant's motion (Doc. 32) is
a patent infringement case brought pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 271, et seq. The parties are competitors in
the grain storage cover industry. The parties, as
competitors, agree that there is a need for discovery in this
case to be governed by a Protective Order, but disagree as to
certain particulars. Each issue with be analyzed in turn.
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) governs Protective Orders and
provides, in relevant part:
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move
for a protective order in the court where the action is
pending.... The motion must include a certification that the
movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer
with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the
dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause,
issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,
including one or more of the following:
(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;
(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the
disclosure or discovery;
* * *
(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the
scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;
(E) designating the persons who may be present while the
discovery is conducted;
* * *
(G) requiring that a trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial information not be
revealed or be revealed only in a specified way; . . . .
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). Thus, the party seeking the Protective
Order has the burden of showing good cause for ...