Does a party seeking to modify a stipulated Rule 26(c) protective order bear the burden of showing good cause for the modification?

QUESTION PRESENTED Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to grant protective orders, for good cause shown, regarding information produced by a litigant or third party. Such orders may be granted where disclosure of that information could cause harm, e.g., for confidential business information such as trade secrets. Here, the district court granted a protective order regarding the plaintiffs’ identities and private information, to protect them from threats of violence. Although the defendants initially stipulated to this protection, on the eve of summary judgment, they moved to lift the protections so they could disclose plaintiffs’ names and other identifying information to the public. The district court granted their motion to remove the protection, holding that plaintiffs bore, but did not sustain, the burden of proving the protections remained necessary. Deepening a three-way circuit conflict, the Eleventh Circuit held that although movants ordinarily bear the burden to show good cause when they seek to modify a protective order, the opposite rule applies when the order was stipulated by the parties. In that circumstance, the court held, the party opposing modification must show good cause to continue the protection. The question presented is: Does a party seeking to modify a stipulated Rule 26(c) protective order bear the burden of showing good cause for the modification?