Where, as here, a defendant seeks unlimited access to discovery that is subject to a protective order, the federal rules provide the framework to adjudicate the disclosure and dissemination issue. See Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d at 789 (where protective order exists, “the merits of the claim must be judged by the text of the rules and the applicable cases interpreting the rules”). “Rules authorizing discovery ... are a matter of legislative grace.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984); Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d at 788 (Seattle Times “focused on the fact that discovery is ‘a matter of legislative grace’ ”); see also Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (<HOLDING>). The existence of the protective order thus
recognizing that a defendant in a criminal case may waive any right even a constitutional right by means of a plea agreement internal citation omitted recognizing tjhere is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case holding that there is no federal constitutional right to a bifurcated criminal trial recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction