judgment, and the hearing on the motion was set for October 18. The hearing was continued for three additional days to allow Perrotta the opportunity to review materials Farmers had produced in discovery and to question a Farmers representative about what each document was. When the hearing resumed, the court denied the motion for continuance and rendered summary judgment in favor of Farmers. A plaintiff is expected that additional time for discovery was needed to compel the production of documents Farmers had withheld based upon attorney-client privilege. Perrotta, however, did not show why the documents were material nor file a motion to compel production after being served with Farmers’s responses. See Blake v. Lewis, 886 S.W.2d 404, 409 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, Perrotta claimed he needed
holding that once a court has found good cause to protect material from public disclosure there is no longer any commonlaw right of access to this material and the party seeking disclosure must present sufficiently compelling reasons why the sealed discovery document should be released holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery holding that such information is not material under securities law holding proponent of a motion for continuance should state what specific discovery is material and show why it is material holding that disclosure during discovery of certain kinds of information including privileged material trade secrets attorney work product or material involving a confidential informant could constitute a material injury of an irreparable nature