Judge Denise Cote
In connection with patent litigation, Lumen View Technology (LVT) alleged that Findthebest.com Inc.’s counsel shared settlement discussion information with Findthebest.com’s CEO, who then blogged the details of those discussions so as to cast LVT in a negative light. Claiming violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 408, LVT sought a protective order prohibiting dissemination. The court denied LVT’s motion—grounded on Federal Rule of Evidence 26(c)—because it sought imposition of a “gag order” that LVT could not justify. The court found Evidence Rule 408 inapposite where, as here, the question was not whether material will be admitted into court but rather whether a party may discuss matters in public. Nor did LVT submit sufficient evidence of any oral confidentiality agreement between counsel arising from Lumen View v. Adicio. The court also rejected LVT’s argument that a protective order was needed because defense counsel submitted as an exhibit in the present case an unredacted letter purportedly subject to the confidentiality agreement in Adicio. That exhibit was not a document the court’s Individual Practice Rules required to be filed under seal. Thus its filing did not support a protective order’s issuance.