In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 15-747C

(Filed June 22, 2016)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

*

JULIET MARINE SYSTEMS, INC., *

*

Plaintiff, *

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the joint motion for a protective order. Though the 

parties agree that a protective order should issue, they disagree on a single 

provision of that order --- namely, what materials should be designated as 

“Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” The parties agree that any non-public, competitionsensitive information received from or concerning third parties should be classified 

as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” The government maintains that there is no reason to 

limit this prohibition to information received from, or concerning, third parties. In 

short, the government claims that access to any information the government has 

concerning plaintiff Juliet Marine Systems, the disclosure of which would harm the 

competitive process, should be restricted to attorneys. By contrast, plaintiff argues 

that any competition-sensitive information the government possesses regarding 

itself should not be so restricted. In support of this argument, plaintiff contends 

that the concerns about competition that animate the protective orders in our bid 

protest cases, and which would limit access to such competition sensitive 

information to attorneys only, are not present in this action. Additionally, plaintiff 

contends that information such as source selection information is not shielded from 

discovery by the Procurement Integrity Act after the award of the contract in 

connection with which it was generated. See 41 U.S.C. § 2102(a)(1), (b). 

As presented in the joint motion, it is not clear to the Court what, if any, 

documents could be affected by the disputed provisions. The government notes that 
- 2 -

no document had yet to be designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” at the time the 

motion was filed, and seemed to doubt that any would. How such documents could 

be embraced by plaintiff ’s discovery requests, and whether plaintiff had ever 

competed for government contracts relating to the technology at issue, have not 

been shared with the Court. Under these circumstances, and particularly in light of 

the restriction on disclosure of competition-related information that has been 

recognized by at least one court, see Prof'l Review Org. of Florida, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't 

of Health & Human Servs., 607 F. Supp. 423, 427 (D.D.C. 1985), the Court believes 

it is prudent to adopt the broader restriction requested by the government. This 

dispute cannot be resolved in the abstract, but instead requires the context of 

specific documents. If any documents are produced to plaintiff’s attorneys for their 

eyes only, which those attorneys believe cannot give any competitive advantage to 

their client because of their vintage or subject matter, plaintiff’s counsel should 

move (under seal) for permission to disclose the documents, and provide a copy to 

chambers for in camera review.

The joint motion for a protective order is accordingly GRANTED. The Court 

shall separately issue the protective order which was proposed as Exhibit B to the 

joint motion, with some minor, typographical changes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Victor J. Wolski

VICTOR J. WOLSKI

Judge