Opinion ID: 1933310
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Concerns Regarding Disclosures to the Press.

Text: The defendants also seek to sustain the motions judge's refusal to order discovery of the Category B materials upon the ground that the plaintiffs were allegedly attempting to try their case in the press, and that disclosures about the individual defendants' financial condition would therefore have threatened to bring about unwarranted intrusions into their privacy. Denial of discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of the action, however, is not an appropriate remedy for the alleged conduct on the part of the plaintiffs of which the defendants complain. Superior Court Civil Rule 26(c) authorizes the trial court to grant a protective order for good cause shown. To prevent abuse of the discovery process, the order may impose specific terms and conditions for discovery and may require that confidential information be disclosed in a certain manner, or not be disclosed at all. Mampe v. Ayerst Labs., 548 A.2d 798, 803 (D.C.1988); see also Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34-36, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 2209-10, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984). Indeed, the motions judge directed the parties to attempt to negotiate an appropriate confidentiality agreement with respect to the Category A information as to which she ordered disclosure. There are no findings in the record to suggest that anything more drastic than that was or could be warranted with respect to Category B.