they are compelled to disclose this information that a protective order is needed. See generally [ECF No. 146 at 23-24]; [ECF No. 45]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Rule 26 provides that a court may issue “an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppres sion, or undue burden or expense ...” when good cause has been shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26 goes on to enumerate types of relief that can be included in a protective order. Id. Rule 26 can be based on grounds including “privileged or work-product material, but can also include improper sharing of confidential information between litigants in separate cases.” Crosswhite v. Lexington Ins. Co., 321 Fed.Appx. 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Scott v. Monsanto Co., 868 F.2d 786, 792 (5th Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Here, Plaintiffs’ Requests Nos. 10 & 13, as
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that restricting use of discovery materials to the opposing party and its counsel representatives experts or consults was not unduly constricting when plaintiffs had broadly sought discovery holding trial court abused its discretion when case had been on file for only three months the discovery sought was material to the plaintiffs claims and the plaintiff exercised due diligence in obtaining discovery holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party