# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 1 5

- 747 C

(Filed June 22 , 201 6 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, th ey disagree on a single

provision of that order

--- namely

, what materials sh ould be designated as

“Attorney s ’ Eyes Only.” The parties agree that any non

- public , competition

sensitive information received from or concerning third parties should be classif ied

a s “Attorney s ’ 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

compe t it ive process, should be restricted to attorneys. By contrast, plaintiff argues

that any competition

- sensitive information th e 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 comp etition 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 govern ment 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 cour t, 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 a bstract, 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 su bject 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 th e 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