and the issues in the case are matters of public concern”); Padberg v. McGrath-McKechnie, No. CV-00-3355 RJD SMG, 2005 WL 5190385, at *2-*3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2005) (not reported in F.Supp.2d) . (declining to prohibit the release of former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s videotaped deposition to the press because of public interest in the case, but prohibiting the parties and their counsel from making improper use of the deposition by selling it or using it for commercial gain); Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 113, 119-20 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (declining to prohibit dissemination of the defendant television commentator’s videotaped deposition, in part, because of public interest in a former congressman’s defamation action against the defendant); Flaherty v. Seroussi, 209 F.R.D. 295, 300 (N.D.N.Y.2001) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the individual Appellees are
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified a protective order after settlement to permit public access to pretrial materials in spite of a protective order to the contrary which it viewed as having had been initially justified 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 a former mayor defendant failed to establish good cause for a protective order restricting the use and reproduction of his video deposition based upon the potential for embarrassment before his constituents in light of the public interest in unfettered access to court proceedings particularly when they involve elected officials and the performance of their governmental responsibilities holding that a defendant must demonstrate that the governments intrusion upon his relationship with his attorney created a possibility of either injury to his defense or benefit to the government in order to establish a violation of the right to counsel holding trial court order denying states petition for an order of public use and necessity for good cause appearing did not constitute a finding of fact or a conclusion of law