Issue Having no legitimate factual or legal basis to withhold the videos and reports from the public, Nissan attempts to cloud the issue with irrelevant and factually incorrect arguments. Nissan focuses on the First Amendment and common law rights of access which intervenors do not raise. Intervenors raise only the good cause requirement of Fed. The stipulated protective order places the burden of showing good cause for nondisclosure squarely on Nissan. The argument fails because corporations have no privacy rights.
Corporations have no First Amendment right of privacy.
Even if the interest which Nissan asserts existed, it would be subsumed within the good cause requirement of Fed. It has not met any such burden here. Unlike Rhinehart's specific and concrete assertion of the harm which would almost certainly flow from disclosure of Rhinehart's followers' names and addresses, Nissan merely asserts an interest. In fact, the information sought is completely different, the relief is different, the applicable law is different, and abstention will not clarify any issues this court must decide. In this case, intervenors seek release of crash test videos and reports.