Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's assertion, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting a protective order proscribing the dissemination of confidential information relating to an "R-205 Regulator". Pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a), "[t]he court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any other party or witness, make a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device". Its discretion in such matters is broad (see, Van Eycken v. Van Eycken, 142 A.D.2d 576) and upon our review of the record we find that the court acted properly (see, Tymko v K-Mart Discount Stores, 75 A.D.2d 987; Snyder v. Parke, Davis Co., 56 A.D.2d 536; McLaughlin v. G.D. Searle, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 810). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.