## Facts

- A personal representative for the Byrd family estates and a minor child’s guardian sued General Motors Corporation (GM) in federal court for products liability and wrongful death arising from a fatal accident and post-collision fire involving a GM C/K pickup.
- Before discovery, the parties stipulated to a “share” protective order permitting use of designated discovery in similar litigation but restricting disclosure to the public.
- After deposition testimony referenced prior settlement payments, the plaintiff sought GM’s settlement information from other C/K pickup cases.
- A magistrate judge ordered GM to produce the total number and aggregate dollar amounts of prior C/K settlements and subjected the information to the existing protective order; GM produced the data under seal.
- The underlying action later settled and was dismissed.
- After dismissal, the Los Angeles Times intervened and moved to unseal the settlement information.
- The district court ordered unsealing, reasoning that the protective order was improper because the material was not within Rule 26(c)’s listed categories (e.g., trade secrets) and that the press had a federal common-law right of access.
- GM appealed the unsealing order.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) when it effectively vacated a stipulated discovery protective order after judgment.
2. Whether the public or press has a constitutional or common-law right of access to discovery materials produced under a protective order and not filed as part of the judicial record.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the order unsealing the settlement information and remanded.
- The court held the district court misconstrued Rule 26(c) by treating its listed examples (such as trade secrets or confidential commercial information) as exhaustive rather than illustrative of the broader “good cause” standard.
- The court held there is no general constitutional or common-law right of public access to unfiled discovery materials exchanged in discovery and kept under a protective order.
- The district court therefore erred by unsealing the materials based on a narrow reading of Rule 26(c) and a purported common-law access right.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 26(c) authorizes protective orders “for good cause shown” to protect parties from harms such as annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden; the rule’s enumerated categories are examples, not limits.
- Discovery materials do not become public judicial records merely because they are produced in litigation; presumptions of public access apply primarily to materials filed with the court or used to adjudicate the merits.
- The public and press generally lack a freestanding constitutional or federal common-law right to access discovery materials that were not filed with the court.
- A stipulated protective order, once entered, remains enforceable; post-judgment modification requires application of the proper Rule 26(c) framework, including consideration of reliance interests and the showing of good cause.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that unfiled discovery produced under a stipulated Rule 26(c) protective order is not subject to a general public right of access, and that a district court may not unseal such materials by applying an overly narrow view of what Rule 26(c) can protect; the unsealing order was reversed and the matter remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard.


Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002)