information to this proceeding, (2) prevent further disclosure, (3) is modeled on such agreements that have been published by federal district courts, and (4) is necessary because the protective order issued by the court on July 3, 2012 covers only the plaintiffs confidential business information and does not address that of the government or third parties. 3 . Which, for whatever reason, this "free” nation finds acceptable. But cf. U.S. Const. amend. V (Takings Clause). After all, the Takings Clause “provides that private property shall not ‘be taken for public use, without just compensation.’ " Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 536, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. V). But cf. itm., e.g., J.P. v. DeSanti, 653 F.2d 1080, 1090 (6th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). This court, at any rate, was somewhat
holding that a private right of action exists holding that there is no private right of action against a state governmental entity for violations of the texas constitution holding that no private right of action exists holding that the constitution does not encompass a general right to nondisclosure of private information recognizing private right of action