Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH v. Biomet. Inc.

In action under 28 USC section 1782 in which plaintiff sought to obtain discovery from defendant to use in its trade secret misappropriation lawsuit against defendant in Germany that eventually resulted in judgment in plaintiff’s favor, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s third request to modify protective order that had been entered upon defendant’s production of said discovery, where proposed modifications would have imposed restrictions on defendant’s internal use of said documents. Plaintiff, as party seeking modification of protective order, has burden of showing good cause to modify protective order, and plaintiff failed to meet said burden, where: (1) plaintiff had originally agreed to entry of original protective order; (2) plaintiff failed to establish change of circumstances that occurred after protective order had originally been entered, or after date plaintiff’s second request for modification of said protective order had been denied: (3) plaintiff’s subsequent trade secret enforcement proceedings seeking to enforce German judgment in other European countries had proceeded apace in spite of lack of proposed modification of protective order; and (4) current protective order had governed parties’ handling of subsequent litigation in ten lawsuits for over one year. Also, scope of instant appeal was limited to last of three requests by plaintiff to modify instant protective order, since: (1) first two denials by Dist. Ct. were final and appealable at time they were entered; and (2) plaintiff had failed to file timely notice of appeal with respect to first two denials.