( emphasis added), common-law right of access does not extend to information collected through discovery which is not a matter of public record. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33,104 S.Ct. 2199, 2207, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984); Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441; United States v. Gurney. 558 F.2d 1202, 1209

2 (2d Cir. 1994) Press-Enter. Co. a Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) passim 34 37 passim Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) 24 State a Cady, 414 P.3d 974 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) 19 United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amod

scovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources," it is not improvidently granted. Id (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNetcom, Inc. v. Fragrancel.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at •4 14 SDNY_GM_

scovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources," it is not improvidently granted. Id (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNetcom, Inc. v. FragranceX.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at *4 14 CONFIDEN

could be damaging to reputation and privacy. The government clearly has a substantial interest in preventing this sort of abuse of its processes. Seattle Times Co. Rhinehard, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984). The Eleventh Circuit has "repeatedly acknowledged the private nature of discovery" and that "[a] court may rest

could be damaging to reputation and privacy. The government clearly has a substantial interest in preventing this sort of abuse of its processes. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehard, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984). The Eleventh Circuit has "repeatedly acknowledged the private nature of discovery" and that "[a] court may re

out its contents." Tillman v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-222-J-34JBT (M.D. Fla. March 13, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41406, at *6, quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 31 (1984) Placing limitations on the dissemination and use of pretrial discovery is particularly important since "[t]he

te 5 EFTA00606592 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 326 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2015 Page 6 of 16 and what degree of protection is required." Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)); see also F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LW, 713 F.3d 54, 58 (11th Cir. 2013) (not

te 5 EFTA00674420 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 326 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2015 Page 6 of 16 and what degree of protection is required." Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)); see also F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LW, 713 F.3d 54, 58 (11th Cir. 2013) (not

could be damaging to reputation and privacy. The government clearly has a substantial interest in preventing this sort of abuse of its processes. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehard, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984). The Eleventh Circuit has Arepeatedly acknowledged the private nature of discovery@ and that A[a] court may re