Also known as: protective order
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A court order that shields a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense during discovery. The order may forbid disclosure, specify terms for production, or limit the scope of requests when good cause is shown after a good-faith conference. It applies to both paper and electronically stored information and may allocate costs or require phased production.
Piper Patel sued Paragon Construction for contract delays. Paragon identified archived project files stored on obsolete servers as not reasonably accessible. When Piper moved to compel production, Paragon filed a motion showing the retrieval would cost over $200,000. The court denied the motion to compel after finding no good cause for full production.
Paige Porter, a prosecutor, possessed internal memos that could mitigate the sentence of defendant Preston Pratt. She moved the court for a protective order allowing redacted disclosure only to defense counsel. The court granted the order after finding that full public release would endanger ongoing investigations.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Portia Price noticed the deposition of a corporate officer in a distant district. The officer's employer moved for a protective order, certifying that counsel had conferred about scheduling. The court granted the order and required the deposition to occur in the district where the action was pending to avoid undue travel expense.
After a district court ordered disclosure of internal communications, Prosperity Investments sought immediate appeal. The appellate court noted that a protective order could have limited further dissemination of the material. Because such orders were available, the court held the disclosure ruling was not immediately appealable.
A special prosecutor subpoenaed audio recordings from the White House. The President moved for a protective order claiming executive privilege. The district court reviewed the tapes in camera and issued an order permitting limited disclosure under seal to protect national security interests.
An independent counsel completed an investigation and prepared a final report. The subject moved the special division for a protective order sealing portions that named unindicted individuals. The court granted the order to prevent unnecessary reputational harm while still allowing public release of the core findings.
The movant must certify a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute without court intervention and must demonstrate good cause that the discovery would cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
Supporting sources
Yes. A party may avoid producing ESI from sources identified as not reasonably accessible due to undue burden or cost. The requesting party may still obtain the material by showing good cause under Rule 26(b)(2)(C).
Supporting sources
No. The court may tailor the order to forbid only specific disclosure, limit the scope, allocate expenses, or require production under seal while still allowing other discovery methods.
Supporting sources
A prosecutor may seek a protective order to withhold or limit disclosure of information that would otherwise be required under Rule 3.8(d) when the tribunal finds that release would harm ongoing investigations or other protected interests.
Supporting sources
…§ 594(h)(1)(B); deciding whether to release the counsel's final report to Congress or the public and determining whether any protective orders should be issued, § 594(h)(2); and terminating an independent counsel when his or her task is completed, § 596(b)(2). Leaving aside for the moment the Division's power to terminate an…