MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
LAWRENCE P. COHEN, United States Magistrate Judge.
After hearing, the Motion of Command Trust Network, Inc., for Leave to Intervene, to Vacate the Protective Order, and to Require Filing of Discovery in Court (# 101) is allowed to the extent that Com[35]*35mand Trust Network, Inc., seeks to intervene for the purpose of moving to vacate the protective order heretofore entered into by the parties, and for the purpose of seeking an order requiring filing of discovery in court.
To the extent, however, that Command Trust Network, Inc., seeks substantive relief—i.e., vacation of that protective order, and the filing of discovery, that motion is—at this time—denied without prejudice for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order (# 93) is allowed in part and denied in part. I. The Motion filed by Command Trust Network, Inc.
A. Procedural Posture
On or about December 21, 1989, plaintiffs filed their complaint in this court alleging claims in the nature of products liability—i.e., that defendants negligently designed and/or manufactured breast implants. On or about June 15, the case was referred to this court for Rule 16(b) proceedings. An initial conference was held on July 31, 1991. During the course of that first conference, this court, and counsel for the parties, generally discussed impending discovery matters which might require judicial intervention. This court directed the filing of appropriate motions to compel, and conditioned the filing of the amendments to pleadings to a period of three months after ruling on the anticipated motions to compel (# 64). In addition, following that conference, this court entered a Rule 16(b) discovery order which, among other things, consistent with the provisions of Rule 5(d), F.R.Civ.P., and Rule 16(g)1 of the Local Rules of this Court,2 prohibited the filing of discovery materials except to the extent permitted by Rule 16(g).3
Thereafter, the parties appeared for a hearing vis a vis cross-motions to compel. Many of the matters briefly addressed at the first conference had been rendered moot by virtue of the fact that plaintiffs and defendant McGhan had entered into a confidentiality agreement and stipulated protective order (# 80)4—approved by this court—which obviated most, if not all, concerns raised by defendant McGhan.5
Because of that protective order,6 discovery then proceeded without incident. [36]*36Defendant MeGhan established a document depository of sorts and permitted counsel for plaintiffs to simply peruse through any and all documents—and to make copies of any and all documents plaintiffs chose. Pursuant to this agreement, counsel for plaintiffs copied—and currently has possession of—some thirteen thousand documents, more or less, most of which, if not all, were marked confidential by defendant MeGhan, and the relevance and/or dis-coverability of which have not been challenged by the defendant MeGhan prior to the motions currently pending before this court.
B. The Intervenor
Command Trust Network, Inc. (“Command Trust”), is a nonprofit organization co-founded by Sybil N. Goldrich. The purpose of that organization is—among other things—to educate women about the potential health hazards associated with silicone [37]*37breast implants.7 By its motion (# 101), Command Trust seeks vacation of the confidentiality agreement and protective order, filing of all discovery materials, and access to all discovery materials.8 Command Trust says that this is necessary to its mission of educating women as to the health hazards associated with silicone breast implants, and to educate the Food and Drug Administration as to those hazards at further hearings presently scheduled for April 20, 1992.9
C. Other Proceedings
1. At the present time, the Food and Drug Administration is considering a moratorium on further surgical silicone breast • implants. Further hearings are currently scheduled for April 20, 1992. All documents to which counsel for plaintiffs had access from McGhan have likewise been
made available to the Food and Drug Administration.
2. A class action on behalf of all women who have had surgical silicone breast implants has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Donna Dante v. Dow Corning, et al., Civil Action No. C-l-92-057 (currently redesignated as In Re: Breast Implant Litigation, Civil Action No. C-l-92-057).10 That class was certified some time prior to February 28, 1992. On February 20, 1992, that court entered an Order Establishing Document Depository under the terms of which all documents responsive to valid discovery requests would be deposited in the courthouse in the Southern District of Ohio.
D. Discussion
In the circumstances, assuming proper grounds for intervention,11 the intervenor’s
[38]*38motion, as drafted, seeking all documents, in the present procedural posture, is denied without prejudice.
In contending that it is entitled to the relief sought, Command Trust, relying on the holding in Public Citizen, supra, simply contends: (1) Discovery documents need not be filed [and hence, access, as a practical matter, denied] only by virtue of the second clause of Rule 5(d),12 F.R.Civ.P., and Rule 33-36(f) [formerly Local Rule 16(g), see footnote 1, supra ] of the Local Rules of this Court; and (2) defendant has not made a showing of “good cause” for continued confidentiality of those discovery documents.13 In the circumstances, however, this court finds and concludes that Command Trust is not entitled to the relief sought for two reasons:
1. First and foremost, the Court in Public Citizen assumed, apparently without objection by any parties to that case, that Rule 5(d), F.R.Civ.P., and Local Rule 16(g) governed the documents there in issue.14
In this court’s view, however, neither rule so governs:
Rule 5(d) provides:
(d) Filing. All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party shall be filed with the court either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter, but the court may on motion of a party or on its own initiative order that depositions upon oral examination and interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admission, and answers, and responses thereto not be filed unless on order of the court or for use in the proceeding. (Emphasis added).
And Local Rule 16(g) [currently Local Rule 33—36(f) ] provides:
(f) Nonfiling of Discovery Materials. Depositions upon oral examinations and notices thereof, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions, and answers and responses thereto,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
LAWRENCE P. COHEN, United States Magistrate Judge.
After hearing, the Motion of Command Trust Network, Inc., for Leave to Intervene, to Vacate the Protective Order, and to Require Filing of Discovery in Court (# 101) is allowed to the extent that Com[35]*35mand Trust Network, Inc., seeks to intervene for the purpose of moving to vacate the protective order heretofore entered into by the parties, and for the purpose of seeking an order requiring filing of discovery in court.
To the extent, however, that Command Trust Network, Inc., seeks substantive relief—i.e., vacation of that protective order, and the filing of discovery, that motion is—at this time—denied without prejudice for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order (# 93) is allowed in part and denied in part. I. The Motion filed by Command Trust Network, Inc.
A. Procedural Posture
On or about December 21, 1989, plaintiffs filed their complaint in this court alleging claims in the nature of products liability—i.e., that defendants negligently designed and/or manufactured breast implants. On or about June 15, the case was referred to this court for Rule 16(b) proceedings. An initial conference was held on July 31, 1991. During the course of that first conference, this court, and counsel for the parties, generally discussed impending discovery matters which might require judicial intervention. This court directed the filing of appropriate motions to compel, and conditioned the filing of the amendments to pleadings to a period of three months after ruling on the anticipated motions to compel (# 64). In addition, following that conference, this court entered a Rule 16(b) discovery order which, among other things, consistent with the provisions of Rule 5(d), F.R.Civ.P., and Rule 16(g)1 of the Local Rules of this Court,2 prohibited the filing of discovery materials except to the extent permitted by Rule 16(g).3
Thereafter, the parties appeared for a hearing vis a vis cross-motions to compel. Many of the matters briefly addressed at the first conference had been rendered moot by virtue of the fact that plaintiffs and defendant McGhan had entered into a confidentiality agreement and stipulated protective order (# 80)4—approved by this court—which obviated most, if not all, concerns raised by defendant McGhan.5
Because of that protective order,6 discovery then proceeded without incident. [36]*36Defendant MeGhan established a document depository of sorts and permitted counsel for plaintiffs to simply peruse through any and all documents—and to make copies of any and all documents plaintiffs chose. Pursuant to this agreement, counsel for plaintiffs copied—and currently has possession of—some thirteen thousand documents, more or less, most of which, if not all, were marked confidential by defendant MeGhan, and the relevance and/or dis-coverability of which have not been challenged by the defendant MeGhan prior to the motions currently pending before this court.
B. The Intervenor
Command Trust Network, Inc. (“Command Trust”), is a nonprofit organization co-founded by Sybil N. Goldrich. The purpose of that organization is—among other things—to educate women about the potential health hazards associated with silicone [37]*37breast implants.7 By its motion (# 101), Command Trust seeks vacation of the confidentiality agreement and protective order, filing of all discovery materials, and access to all discovery materials.8 Command Trust says that this is necessary to its mission of educating women as to the health hazards associated with silicone breast implants, and to educate the Food and Drug Administration as to those hazards at further hearings presently scheduled for April 20, 1992.9
C. Other Proceedings
1. At the present time, the Food and Drug Administration is considering a moratorium on further surgical silicone breast • implants. Further hearings are currently scheduled for April 20, 1992. All documents to which counsel for plaintiffs had access from McGhan have likewise been
made available to the Food and Drug Administration.
2. A class action on behalf of all women who have had surgical silicone breast implants has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Donna Dante v. Dow Corning, et al., Civil Action No. C-l-92-057 (currently redesignated as In Re: Breast Implant Litigation, Civil Action No. C-l-92-057).10 That class was certified some time prior to February 28, 1992. On February 20, 1992, that court entered an Order Establishing Document Depository under the terms of which all documents responsive to valid discovery requests would be deposited in the courthouse in the Southern District of Ohio.
D. Discussion
In the circumstances, assuming proper grounds for intervention,11 the intervenor’s
[38]*38motion, as drafted, seeking all documents, in the present procedural posture, is denied without prejudice.
In contending that it is entitled to the relief sought, Command Trust, relying on the holding in Public Citizen, supra, simply contends: (1) Discovery documents need not be filed [and hence, access, as a practical matter, denied] only by virtue of the second clause of Rule 5(d),12 F.R.Civ.P., and Rule 33-36(f) [formerly Local Rule 16(g), see footnote 1, supra ] of the Local Rules of this Court; and (2) defendant has not made a showing of “good cause” for continued confidentiality of those discovery documents.13 In the circumstances, however, this court finds and concludes that Command Trust is not entitled to the relief sought for two reasons:
1. First and foremost, the Court in Public Citizen assumed, apparently without objection by any parties to that case, that Rule 5(d), F.R.Civ.P., and Local Rule 16(g) governed the documents there in issue.14
In this court’s view, however, neither rule so governs:
Rule 5(d) provides:
(d) Filing. All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party shall be filed with the court either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter, but the court may on motion of a party or on its own initiative order that depositions upon oral examination and interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admission, and answers, and responses thereto not be filed unless on order of the court or for use in the proceeding. (Emphasis added).
And Local Rule 16(g) [currently Local Rule 33—36(f) ] provides:
(f) Nonfiling of Discovery Materials. Depositions upon oral examinations and notices thereof, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions, and answers and responses thereto, shall not be filed unless so ordered by the court or for use in the proceeding. The [39]*39party taking a deposition or obtaining any material through discovery is responsible for its preservation and delivery to the court if needed or so ordered. If for any reason a party or concerned citizen believes that any of the named documents should be filed,, an ex parte request may be made that such document • be filed, stating the reasons therefor. The court may also order filing sua sponte. If relief is sought under Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(c) or 37, copies of the relevant portions of disputed documents shall be filed with the court contemporaneously with any motion. If the moving party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 or the opponent relies on discovery documents, copies of the pertinent parts thereof shall be filed with the motion or opposition. (Emphasis in first sentence added).
Rule 5(d)—and, derivatively, Local Rule 16(g)—by its very terms, applies only to pleadings required to be served upon a party. That is to say, Rule 5(d) must be read in conjunction with Rule 5(a), F.R.Civ.P. That rule, in turn, only requires service when required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in general, or, in particular vis a vis discovery, “... every paper relating to discovery required to be served upon a party ...”. (Emphasis added).
Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in general, and nothing in those rules relating to discovery in particular, require service of documents on the adversaries.
Discovery of documents under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is governed by Rule 34. That rule provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Scope. Any party may serve on any other party a request (1) to produce and permit the party making the request ... to inspect and copy, any designated documents ...
(b) Procedure. *****
The party upon whom the request is served shall serve a written response within 30 days after the service of the request____ The response shall state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated. (Emphasis added).
Accordingly, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally, and under Rule 34 of those Rules in particular, defendant McGhan, upon receipt of plaintiffs request for production of documents, was required only to serve on counsel for plaintiffs (and hence, file under Rule 5(d)) a written response which “shall state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated”—nothing more, and nothing less.
In this case, defendant McGhan fully complied with Rules 5(a) and 34. Plaintiffs served their request for production of documents on defendant McGhan on February 26, 1990. Defendant McGhan, in turn, served its response to that request on plaintiffs on April 9, 1990. (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant, McGhan Medical Corporation (# 54, ¶ 3)). And, indeed, that response was subsequently filed with the court,15 has been spread upon the public record, and is available to all.
Accordingly, this court finds and concludes that—with deference to the holding in Public Citizen, a holding limited to the matters raised by the parties in that particular case—neither Rule 5(a), Rule 5(d), Rule 34(b), nor any other rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires service or filing of documents made available for inspection and/or copying pursuant to a request made under Rule 34(a), F.R.Civ.P.16 [40]*40That being the case, Local Rule 16(g), and its requirement of “good cause”, is simply beside the point.
2. Secondly, and equally as important, even without gainsaying the holding in Public Citizen,17 the chink in the inter-venor’s position is that, in the present posture of this case, it simply puts the cart before the horse. That is because the argument assumes that the documents currently in the possession of counsel for the plaintiffs, and the documents to whieh counsel had access in the depository provided by defendant McGhan are, indeed, discovery documents.
In the circumstances, that threshold showing has not been made. It is clear that discovery documents, as that term is used in Rule 5(d) and Local Rule 16(g), means something more than any document which might be in the possession of one party or another, or any document which, apart from the discovery rules set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, one party tenders or shows to another party. It is clear that, in context, discovery documents within the meaning of those rules must mean documents which, over the objection of one party or the other, must be provided to the adversary under Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and particularly Rule 34, that is, documents (and/or other discovery information) which is relevant and not otherwise privileged. See Rule 26(b)(1), F.R.Civ.P.
In its present posture, this case is like that presented in Oklahoma Hospitals Ass’n v. Oklahoma Publishing' Co., 748 F.2d 1421 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3528, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985). There, in denying a claim for access to documents by an intervenor—albeit on grounds of “standing”—that Court observed (Id. at 1425):
Such is the case here. The district court entered protective orders in order to expedite a discovery process involving literally hundreds of thousands of documents, many of which were subject to claims of privilege. At that stage in the litigation, those documents had not been filed with the court and certainly had not satisfied threshold tests of relevancy and admissibility. They therefore were not available to the public generally, and OPUBGO does not have standing to complain about the existence of the protective order.
So too, here. Based on the stipulation of confidentiality entered into by the plaintiffs, defendant McGhan opened its doors to freewheeling document inspection, permitting plaintiffs to pick and choose as they desired, without reference to the issue of relevancy, privilege, and/or admissibility. It may be, but has not been shown, that any or all of the documents [none of which have been particularized by the in-tervenor—even in a general sense] are relevant and non-privileged; that is, that the documents to which Command Trust seeks access are discovery documents within the meaning of Public Citizen, supra. The motion of the Command Trust Network, Inc.—to the extent that Command Trust seeks substantive relief—is accordingly denied without prejudice.18
[41]*41II. The Motion filed by Plaintiff
To the extent that plaintiffs, by way of their Motion for Relief from Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order (# 93), seek relief from that stipulation and protective order for the purpose of submitting the six exhibits referred to in that motion to the Food and Drug Administration, that motion is—with the assent of defendant McGhan—allowed.
To the extent that plaintiffs seek to disclose those documents generally, or even to other counsel, the motion is denied.
In support of their position, counsel for plaintiffs, at the hearing before this court, suggested that disclosure to other counsel was necessary for preparation of plaintiffs’ case before this court. The Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order, however, does not preclude that preparation. To the contrary, Section 4 of that Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order specifically provides:
4. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall not disclose or permit the disclosure of any • material or information designated as confidential under this Stipulation and Protective Order to any other person or entity except in the following circumstances:
(a) Disclosure may be made to employees of counsel who have direct functional responsibility for the preparation and trial of this action or in the appeal herein. Any employee to whom disclosure is made shall be advised of, and become subject to, the provisions of this Stipulation and Protective Order requiring that the material and information be held in confidence.
(b) Disclosure may be made to consultants or experts (hereinafter “expert”) employed by counsel to assist in the preparation and trial of this litigation. Prior to disclosure to Plaintiff and any expert, they must agree to be bound by the terms of this Stipulation and Protective Order by executing the confidentiality Agreement annexed hereto as Exhibit
A. A copy of each executed Confidentiality Agreement shall be delivered to counsel for Defendant at the time the Plaintiff lists its experts which it intends to call at trial. If disclosure is made to persons employed by competitors or to consultants hired by competitors of Defendant, McGhan Medical Corporation, then such persons must agree to not use such information for competitive purposes.
5. Counsel for Plaintiff shall keep all material or information designated as confidential which is received under this Stipulation and Protective Order in a secure and locked file with access limited to those persons with a need to know for the purpose of preparation of the case.
Section 4 clearly permits counsel for plaintiffs to use the material in preparation of their case before this court. Plaintiffs have proffered no valid reason to excuse them from the terms of their prior agreement.