Protective Orders Not So Protective?

So suggest the folks at the new defense-oriented Drug & Device Law blog, which includes this suggestion:

We'd like to see an academic (who might have the time to pursue this) research the mass tort cases (since about 1985 or so, when modern mass torts sprung into being) to determine the percentage of cases in which protective orders have been violated and the number of times courts have tracked down and punished the violator. If, as we suspect, protective orders are routinely ignored, but violators are rarely punished, that fact should influence how courts conduct future cases. If courts can't honestly tell defendants that protective orders will be enforced, what should follow from that? Should particularly sensitive documents not be produced at all? Should document depositories be protected more carefully? Are there other implications for future cases?

Hey...I'm an academic.  Sounds interesting to me.  Anyone want to give me a head start?  E-mail me (wchilds AT law DOT wnec DOT edu) any briefing and orders you've got from mass torts in that time frame.