Opinion ID: 548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Plain Meaning of Protective Orders

Text: The starting point for interpretation of a protective order lies in its plain language. See City of Hartford v. Chase, 942 F.2d 130, 134-35 (2d Cir.1991) (Because the Confidentiality Order was part of a court-approved agreement, it must be construed according to general principles of contract law ... Thus, deference is to be paid to the plain meaning of the language ... and the normal usage of the terms selected. (citation and quotation omitted)). Both protective orders provided that the Confidential Information would only be shared for the purposes of pursuing the SEC action and related litigation, and for no other purpose. Each then identified those with whom it would be shared. The first protective order specifically limited such sharing of Confidential Information for the purposes of pursuing the SEC action and related litigation. The second protective order permitted sharing the information with specified persons to whom it is necessary that such Confidential Information be given. Aplt.App. at 132. Both the first protective order, and the second as modified by the district court on December 21, 2004, permitted the SEC to provide Confidential Information to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Utah, which could then use it for the purposes described in the orders. As a recipient of Confidential Information, the United States Attorney's Office was prohibited from further disclosing or using it except as specifically provided within the protective orders. Id. at 119-20, 131-32. Thus, by their plain language, the protective orders prohibited the disclosures of Confidential Information made to the IRS in this case.