Wilkins v. Conopco Inc et al
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER by the parties regarding confidentiality. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 08/13/2012. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DARRYL K. WILKINS, SR.
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-886 DPM
CONOPCO, INC., dba UNILEVER,
SUSANNE G. ZEH AND PATRICK J. MATHIEU,
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER
The Parties to this action, Plaintiff Darryl K. Wilkins, Sr. ("Plaintiff' or
"Wilkins") and Defendants Conopco, Inc., dba Unilever, Susanne G. Zeh and
Patrick J. Mathieu, ("Defendants"), have stipulated, through their respective
counsel, to the entry of this Protective Order Regarding Confidentiality ("Protective
During the course of the litigation of this matter, Plaintiff and Defendants
may identify and agree to produce certain documents containing confidential and
personal information pertaining to the parties as well as individuals who are not
parties to this action.
Specifically, Plaintiff may identify and agree to produce, his own medical and
financial records and other documents he considers confidential. Defendants may
identify and agree to produce personnel records of third parties and other
confidential and/or proprietary information. Moreover, during the course of
discovery, the Parties may request additional personal, confidential, or proprietary
documentation from each other or from third parties. The parties have agreed that
a Protective Order is needed to ensure the confidentiality of such information and to
ensure that such information will be used only for the legitimate purposes of related
to this litigation.
If a party produces any documents to which this Protective Order is
applicable, the producing Party (including any third party producing such
documents) shall mark the documents "CONFIDENTIAL." Any document so
marked shall not be disclosed to any person except as permitted by this Protective
Order. The designation of any document as "CONFIDENTIAL" will be made in good
faith, and the Parties shall have ten (10) days after service of documents marked
"CONFIDENTIAL" to challenge such designation by filing a motion with the Court.
A lawyer who wishes to challenge the "CONFIDENTIAL" designation made
by the producing party of any materials must first attempt in good faith to confer
with the lawyer for the producing party in an effort to resolve the issue amicably. If
agreement cannot be reached, the challenging party may file a motion asking the
Court to remove the designation. The motion should describe with specificity the
particular materials for which the designation is being challenged and set forth
with specificity the particular materials that are not properly designated as
"CONFIDENTIAL." The party seeking to maintain materials as
"CONFIDENTIAL" generally will bear the burden of proving that the designation is
proper. Materials designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" will continue to be treated as
such and subject to the provisions of this Protective Order pending determination
by the Court of the merits of any such challenge.
In the event that personal, confidential or proprietary information is
disclosed in response to an interrogatory, the answering party may designate the
response as confidential information by conspicuously stamping the interrogatory
answer with the word "CONFIDENTIAL."
A party may designate as "CONFIDENTIAL" portions of any deposition
transcript wherein confidential materials or information are identified, discussed,
or disclosed. Portions of a deposition transcript so designated will be subject to the
terms ofthis Protective Order. The designation must be made on the record during
the deposition or by letter sent by email or facsimile to other counsel of record
within forty-five business days after receipt of the transcript or at least five
business days before the deadline for filing summary judgment motions, whichever
date is earliest. All portions of the deposition transcript not designated as
"CONFIDENTIAL" by 5:00p.m. Central Time on the forty-fifth business day after
receipt of the transcript are excluded from the protections of this Protective Order.
All deposition transcripts shall be treated as confidential and subject to the
protections of this Protective Order until the expiration of the forty-five day period.
The use of any documents or information therein subject to this Protective
Order shall be restricted to the following persons:
The Parties to this litigation;
Counsel for the Parties, including their respective paralegals
and clerical employees;
Witnesses or prospective witnesses, including but not limited to
persons requested by counsel to furnish technical or other expert service, to
give testimony or to otherwise prepare for any deposition, hearing, trial, or
any other proceeding in this action, provided such witness or prospective
witness agrees to be expressly bound by the terms of this Protective Order
and not disclose the documents or information therein to any party or person
outside this litigation; and
The Court and its personnel, including the stenographic
reporters not regularly employed by the Court who are engaged by the
Parties or the Court during the litigation of this case.
Upon final termination of this action, whether via completion of the litigation
process, trial and any appeal in this action and the satisfaction of any judgment, or
upon the conclusion of settlement of this action, all persons subject to this Order
shall return to the producing Party, upon request in writing, all documents subject
to this Protective Order, including any and all copies, prints, negatives, or
summaries, in the possession of employees, experts, or consultants employed or
retained by counsel for the· Parties, except those items compromising any appellate
record, hearing record, deposition, trial court record, privileged communications, or
attorney work product.
Subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, any confidential information or
documents may be offered in evidence at trial or any Court hearing. Any party may
move the Court to prevent unnecessary disclosure of confidential information and
Any material submitted to or filed with the Court which contains information
covered by this Protective Order shall be redacted to the extent practicable. FED. R.
CIV. P. 5.2. If redaction is not feasible, then the material shall be filed under seal,
in a sealed envelope marked to indicate that the enclosed material is confidential
and is to be made available only to the presiding judge and the judge's staff unless
and until the Court orders otherwise. Nothing in this Protective Order shall
restrict any use by a producing party of its own confidential information or
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
J/ ?}). . . ,11 : ; - )J"J J...
Sandra Y. Harris, Attorney at Law, P.L.L.C.
3071 West 28th Street
P.O. Box 1052
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71613
Telephone: (870) 536-2600
Facsimile: (870) 536-2663
By: /s/ Sandra Y. Harris
Sandra Y. Harris (92207)
Attorney for Plaintiff Darryl K. Wilkins, Sr.
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 1-3699
Telephone: (501) 371-0808
Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
By: /s/ Michelle M. Kaemmerling
Michelle M. Kaemmerling (2001227)
Jane A. Kim (2007160)
Attorneys for Defendants Conopco, Inc.
dlbla Unilever and Suzanne G. Zeh
Denise Reid Hoggard
CHISENHALL, NESTRUD & JULIAN P .A.
400 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 2840
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-5800
Fax: (501) 372-4941
By: /s/ Denise Reid Hoggard
Denise Reid Hoggard (84072)
Attorneys for Defendant Patrick J. Mathieu
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?