Citations
- 474 F. Supp. 2d 385
Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM, FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER & INJUNTION
WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.
Table of Contents
I. IntRoduction.391
II. Faots.397
A. The Litigation .397
B. Protective Order, Case Management Order No. 3.397
C. Agreement by Egilman to be Bound by Protective Order.399
D. Conspiracy of Berenson, Egilman, and Gottstein.400
E. Subpoenas Issued by Gottstein.401
F. Response to the Subpoenas.402
G. Discharge of Egilman by Lanier.403
H. Dissemination of Documents Pursuant to Conspiracy.403
1. Acts by Conspirators.403
2. Protectable Distributed Documents .404
I. Attempts by Special Master Woodin to Retrieve Documents .404
J. Publication by N.Y. Times.405
K. Formal Court Intervention .405
1. Argument Before Magistrate Judge Mann.405
2. Temporary Restraining Order by Judge Cogan.405
3. Order to Show Cause for Deposition of Egilman by Judge Weinstein.406
4. Evasive Actions of Enjoined Persons.406
5. Preliminary Injunction by Judge Cogan.407
6. Hearing on Permanent Injunction By Judge Weinstein.408
7. Invitation to Berenson to Appear by Judge Weinstein.408
a) Invitation.408
b) Response.411
III. Law .412
A. Public Right of Access to Documents Produced in Discovery.412
B. Protective Orders .413
1. Generally.413
2. Rule 26(c) .414
a) Generally.414
b) Subsection 7.415
3. Umbrella Protective Orders.416
4. First Amendment Implications of Protective Orders .416
C. Court Authority to Enforce Orders.417
1. Generally.417
2. National Scope.418
D. Injunctions.418
1. Generally.418
2. Persons Bound.418
3. Enjoining Dissemination of Stolen Protected Documents.419
4. Content Neutral .420
IV. Application Of Law To Facts ^ tO 1 — L
The Documents are Properly Protected Under CMO-3. 4^. DO I — I
1. CMOS is a Valid Umbrella Protective Order. 4^. DO I — I
2. Documents Contain Information Protectable by Rule 26(c) and CMOS. DO 1 — 1
Court has Power to Order Return of Stolen Documents. td DO DO
Restrictions on Dissemination Do Not Violate First Amendment Rights O DO CO
1. CMOS’s Restriction on Dissemination of Confidential Documents Does Not Implicate First Amendment Rights. DO CO
2. The Injunction’s Restriction on Dissemination Does Not Impinge on First Amendment Rights . 4^ DO CO
Enjoining Persons Who Refuse to Return the Documents is Necessary to Prevent Irreparable Harm to Lilly. Ü 4^ DO 4^
Enjoining Persons Who Returned the Documents is Not Necessary to Prevent Irreparable Harm to Lilly. Websites Should Not Be Enjoined. All Named Persons are Bound by the Injunction. Persons Bound. 1. Recipients of Documents. 2. Amelia Desanto. 3. N.Y. Times, National Public Radio and Snighdha Prakash. 4. Berenson. 5. Gottstein and Egilman. 6. Websites. 7. Persons Who Have Not Returned the Documents. 8. Persons Restrained. WO¡4 H 4^4^4^.4^4^4^4^4^4^4^4^4^ DODODODODODODODODODODODO 00 00 00 00 00*^<]