Rosenthal v. Carr

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• requiring party requesting a 12 protective order to provide “specific demonstrations of fact, supported where possible by affidavits and concrete examples”
• requiring party requesting a protective order to 17 provide “specific demonstrations of fact, supported where possible by affidavits and concrete 18 examples, rather than broad, conclusory allegations of potential harm”
• “Speculative allegations of injury from the disclosure of years-old information are not sufficient to warrant issuance of a protective order.”
• “While staleness of the information sought to be protected is not an absolute bar to issuance of an order, it is a factor which must be overcome by a specific showing of present harm.”
• “The burden is on the party requesting a protective order to demonstrate that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).