In re N.Y. Times Co., 878 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam); ABC, Inc. v. Stetvart, 360 F.3d 90, 97 (2d Cir.2004). The Court finds these eases inapposite, and reviews Judge Tomlinson’s Order under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 2. The First Amendment’s Restrictions on the Protective Order Rule 26(c) provides that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” It is well-settled that courts have broad power to enter protective orders under Rule 26(c) that prohibit parties from sharing discovery materials with non-litigants (such orders are typically referred to as “confidentiality orders”). See, e.g., AT & T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, a confidentiality order limits
holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause recognizing the validity of a rule 26c confidentiality order entered on good cause recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing validity of rule stated in marhal recognizing rule