ORDER

F.A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.

The protective order entered in this case does not permit documents obtained through discovery in this litigation to be used in a related action pending in state court. (Filing 123.) Still, the protective order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. (Id.) Plaintiff now seeks to modify the protective order so that it may submit certain documents produced in this action to the judge in the state court action for in camera review. (Filing 144.) Specifically, Plaintiff wants to submit email exchanges between Defendants and Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, Inc. ("BHMI"), including the attachments to those emails. Plaintiff also wants to submit its Brief in Support of Motion to Compel (filing 134) filed in this action.

Having considered the matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to allow this slight modification of the protective order. Plaintiff has shown that the subject documents could potentially be useful in the state court proceeding. Moreover, allowing this amendment will not unduly prejudice Defendants or BHMI, as they have already seen most, if not all, of the documents in question.

To be clear, this Court is not ruling that the state court judge must review the documents and/or allow the documents to be used in the state court proceeding, nor is this Court ruling as to the relevance of the documents in the state court action. Rather, this Court finds that the state court judge should at least be given the opportunity to review the materials should he so choose.

IT IS ORDERED: