## Facts

- Parents of Daniel Van Etten sued Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. in federal court for products liability, alleging defective tires on a Ford Explorer caused a fatal rollover.
- Early in the case, the parties stipulated to an umbrella protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) permitting confidential designations for discovery materials.
- The protective order required materials designated confidential and filed with the court to be filed under seal and limited access primarily to the court, counsel, and experts.
- Of nearly 300 filed documents, 15 were filed under seal pursuant to the protective order.
- After summary judgment was denied, the parties settled.
- News organizations intervened after settlement and moved to unseal the 15 documents; Firestone opposed unsealing some documents, asserting trade-secret and confidential commercial information concerns.
- The district court ordered the documents unsealed, applying a First Amendment-style “compelling governmental interest” and “narrowly tailored” test rather than Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” standard.

## Issues

1. What legal standard governs a motion to unseal documents filed with the court pursuant to a Rule 26(c) umbrella protective order: Rule 26(c) “good cause” or a First Amendment “compelling governmental interest” test?
2. Did the district court err by ordering unsealing without applying the Rule 26(c) framework and requiring a particularized showing supporting continued sealing?

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit vacated the order unsealing the documents and remanded.
- The court held the district court applied the wrong standard by using the First Amendment “compelling governmental interest” test.
- On remand, the district court was instructed to determine whether “good cause” exists to maintain the documents under seal under Rule 26(c).

## Legal Principles

- A protective order issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), including Rule 26(c)(7) for trade secrets and confidential commercial information, requires a showing of “good cause.”
- Umbrella protective orders may confer presumptive confidentiality on discovery materials designated confidential, but that presumption is subject to later challenge.
- When confidentiality of materials filed under an umbrella protective order is contested, the proper inquiry is whether the proponent of continued sealing can establish “good cause,” not whether sealing satisfies a First Amendment “compelling interest” test.
- Appellate review may require vacatur and remand when a district court employs an incorrect access standard and does not make the fact-specific “good cause” determination required by Rule 26(c).

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit required courts to evaluate continued sealing of discovery materials filed under an umbrella protective order using Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” standard, vacating an unsealing order that instead applied a First Amendment “compelling interest” test and remanding for a proper good-cause determination.


Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001)