failing to request such an order by September 3, 2010. More troublesome is the fact that the County Defendants also failed to request a confidentiality order before or at the time they produced the IAU Report — the date of production being sometime between October 29, 2010 and November 10, 2010. In the Court’s view, there is no doubt that this failure to request a confidentiality order waived the County Defendants’ right to seek redress had the plaintiff published the IAU Report while no protective order was in place. Similarly, there is no doubt that, if the plaintiff had made the document public, the First Amendment would require more than a showing of good cause to limit further dissemination. However, the relevant question here is whether the County Defendants, 413 (M.D.N.C.1991) (<HOLDING>); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur.
holding that a defendant has the right to an order permitting him to inspect his own written or recorded statements absent a basis for a protective order holding petitioner cannot circumvent time requirements for seeking certiorari review of an order denying a motion for a protective order by filing a successive motion seeking the same relief and seeking certiorari review that is timely only with respect to the order denying the second motion holding that production of documents without seeking a protective order waives the right to such an order unless there is a showing of good cause for the delay holding that speculation that production of requested documents might reveal exculpatory evidence is insufficient to establish good cause for discovery holding that to gain a protective order the party must make particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual document