{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "311-4",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 18 of 27\nTo Be Filed Under Seal\n\n\"An examination of Second Circuit case law reveals the following factors are relevant when determining whether a party has reasonably relied on the protective order: (1) the scope of the protective order; (2) the language of the order itself; (3) the level of inquiry the court undertook before granting the order; and (4) the nature of reliance on the order.\" In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litig., 255 F.R.D. 308, 318 (D. Conn. 2009).\n\nThe first factor—the scope of the Protective Order—favors granting the Government's application for modification. As discussed, the Protective Order was \"a broad blanket order, stipulated to by the parties, which afforded the parties the discretion to designate whatever they produced as 'confidential.'\" Nielsen Co. (U.S.), LLC v. Success Sys., Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 83, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Blanket pretrial protective orders, drafted by the parties and \"so ordered\" by the court, are common. This case was no exception. \"A broad protective order is less likely to elicit reliance 'because it is more difficult to show a party reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition.'\" Id. (quoting EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 319).\n\nThe second factor—the language of the Protective Order itself—similarly weighs in favor of modification. The Protective Order provided that confidential information could be used at trial. (Protective Order, ¶¶ 4, 13.) As the Second Circuit has repeatedly held, a temporary or limiting provision in a protective order undercuts a finding of reasonable reliance, because from the outset there was the very real possibility that material produced in discovery would end up in the public record. See, e.g., Agent Orange, 821 F.2d at 147. The very fact that material would have to be unsealed for trial undercuts a finding of reliance.\n\nAdditionally, where material contained in court filings is concerned, any expectation of confidentiality is necessarily grounded on the court's decision whether to grant the motion to seal (presumably after weighing the necessary factor)—not reliance on the protective order. And\n\n17\nSDNY_GM_00000891\nDOJ-OGR-00004941",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 18 of 27",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To Be Filed Under Seal",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"An examination of Second Circuit case law reveals the following factors are relevant when determining whether a party has reasonably relied on the protective order: (1) the scope of the protective order; (2) the language of the order itself; (3) the level of inquiry the court undertook before granting the order; and (4) the nature of reliance on the order.\" In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litig., 255 F.R.D. 308, 318 (D. Conn. 2009).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The first factor—the scope of the Protective Order—favors granting the Government's application for modification. As discussed, the Protective Order was \"a broad blanket order, stipulated to by the parties, which afforded the parties the discretion to designate whatever they produced as 'confidential.'\" Nielsen Co. (U.S.), LLC v. Success Sys., Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 83, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Blanket pretrial protective orders, drafted by the parties and \"so ordered\" by the court, are common. This case was no exception. \"A broad protective order is less likely to elicit reliance 'because it is more difficult to show a party reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition.'\" Id. (quoting EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 319).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The second factor—the language of the Protective Order itself—similarly weighs in favor of modification. The Protective Order provided that confidential information could be used at trial. (Protective Order, ¶¶ 4, 13.) As the Second Circuit has repeatedly held, a temporary or limiting provision in a protective order undercuts a finding of reasonable reliance, because from the outset there was the very real possibility that material produced in discovery would end up in the public record. See, e.g., Agent Orange, 821 F.2d at 147. The very fact that material would have to be unsealed for trial undercuts a finding of reliance.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Additionally, where material contained in court filings is concerned, any expectation of confidentiality is necessarily grounded on the court's decision whether to grant the motion to seal (presumably after weighing the necessary factor)—not reliance on the protective order. And",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY_GM_00000891",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004941",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "D. Conn.",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "2009",
      "2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "311-4",
      "255 F.R.D. 308",
      "112 F. Supp. 3d 83",
      "821 F.2d",
      "SDNY_GM_00000891",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004941"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case in the Southern District of New York. The text discusses the factors relevant to determining whether a party has reasonably relied on a protective order. The document is marked 'To Be Filed Under Seal' and contains reference numbers and citations to legal cases."
}