Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad

Filing 70

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 12/19/2019. (jbh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
PERRY HOPMAN

PLAINTIFF

v.

Case No. 4:18-cv-00074-KGB

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

DEFENDANT

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff Perry Hopman’s motion to enter agreed protective order (Dkt.
No. 51). Mr. Hopman represents that the parties have agreed to the draft protective order attached
to the motion (Dkt. No. 51-1). Accordingly, the Court grants Mr. Hopman’s motion to enter agreed
protective order (Dkt. No. 51).
The Court therefore finds as follows:
1.

The documents produced by any party in discovery that are designated and labeled

as confidential shall be deemed “confidential documents,” subject to the terms of this Protective
Order.
2.

The party receiving such confidential documents or information derived therefrom

can only use the documents or information in connection with the preparation and trial of the
above-captioned action.
3.

The party receiving the confidential documents, or the information derived

therefrom, shall not disclose the documents or the information to any natural person, corporation,
partnership, firm or association whatsoever, except to:
a.

any counsel who have filed appearances on behalf of a party to the abovecaptioned action;

b.

employees of such counsel who have direct responsibility for assisting such
counsel in the preparation and trial of the above-captioned action;

c.

experts of a party who have direct responsibility for assisting counsel in the
preparation and trial of the above-captioned action;

d.

court reporters transcribing depositions in the action;

e.

deponents at the time of a deposition or witnesses before and during the
trial;

f.
g.
4.

any jury in the action;
the trial or appellate courts and their respective staffs.

After the final determination of this action, including all appeals, all parties subject

to this Protective Order shall return to counsel for defendant or plaintiff, as the case may be, the
confidential documents produced to them including any copies of the confidential documents.
5.

Nothing in this order shall limit any party’s ability to offer any material designated

as confidential into evidence at any judicial proceeding in this action.
6.

No party shall mention this Protective Order or its contents, including any

allegation that a party sought confidential documents during discovery or that the responding party
resisted any such discovery in front of any jury called for the trial of this case.
So ordered this 19th day of December 2019.

_______________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2