Phinney v. Greenwood Motor Lines Inc et al

Filing 43

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/3/2025. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
MALCOM PHINNEY
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:23-cv-1095-DPM

GREENWOD MOTOR LINES, INC., dfb/a
R+L CARRIERS; MATTHEW DAKUS;
and JOHN DOE, Motor Carriers 1-5

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court, upon good cause shown, and in accordance with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(c)(l), orders as follows:
1.

This Agreed Protective Order shall be entered pursuant to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery in this action involves
disclosure of 90 days of Defendant Matthew Dakus' cell phone records.
By Order dated 3 December 2024, this Court ruled that Dakus can
provide the records subject to a mutually agreeable Protective Order,
noting that "Discovery and admissibility are, of course, different
issues." Doc. 35. This cell phone data at hand is confidential and will
be produced to the Plaintiff Malcolm Phinney in this lawsuit pursuant
to this Agreed Protective Order, which limits the identity of individuals
entitled to review such records and describes how such records should
be maintained and protected. The existing protective order entered in

this case, Doc. 28, is incorporated substantially into this agreed
protective order for production of the cell phone records.
2.

Cell phone records that are marked and supplied subject to

this Agreed Protective Order may not be copied, distributed, or
otherwise used in any manner, except as allowed in this Order, or by
the Court.
3.

The parties may communicate with their clients, experts and

persons working on their behalf about the contents of documents
produced subjective to this Agreed Protective Order.
4.

Counsel must confer in good faith in person before bringing

any dispute arising under this Agreed Protective Order to the Court. A
party or any other person objecting shall provide written notice of the
dispute to the appropriate party or parties, specifying the materials that
are the subject of the dispute. Within thirty days after an objection, the
parties and any other objecting person(s) shall confer in good faith, and
in person, to resolve the dispute. If the parties reach an impasse, they
must file a joint report explaining the disagreement. The parties will
file this paper under the CM/ECF event called "Joint Report of
Discovery Dispute."

This joint report shall not exceed ten pages,

excluding the style and signature block. Each side gets five pages. The
joint report must be filed sufficiently before the trial cutoff so that the
dispute can be resolved without undermining other pretrial deadlines.
The parties will alert the law clerk on the case to the joint report's filing.

-2-

The parties will not proceed on the disputed issue until the Court issues
a ruling or schedules a hearing.
5.

The parties must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2' s mandate

for redaction, if practicable, before filing under seal. If an entire page
contains confidential information, substituting a page marked
"Redacted" is an acceptable redaction method.

If redaction is

impracticable, a party must move for permission to file any confidential
information, on any related motion, brief, or paper containing that
material, under seal. The moving party must justify sealing document
by document, with specifics and solid reasons, including an
explanation about why redaction cannot be done.
6.

Confidential information shall not be used for any purpose

other than the defense, prosecution, or settlement of this action in
accordance with the provisions of this this Agreed Protective Order and
shall not be discussed or disclosed to any person except as specifically
authorized by this Agreed Protective Order.

Any documents,

information, deposition testimony, or other material subject to this
Agreed Protective Order shall not be used or disclosed, directly or
indirectly, by any party for any business, commercial or competitive
purpose whatsoever.

7.

The inadvertent, unintentional, or in camera disclosure,

without designation of confidential information or a document
intended to be designated or that should have been designated as

-3-

confidential shall not waive the right to designate the document or
information. Upon discovery of an inadvertent error, counsel for the
parties shall, to the extent possible, cooperate to restore the
confidentiality of the designated information.

Any information or

documentation that is inadvertently or unintentionally not designated
as confidential when produced shall be treated as confidential under
this Agreed Protective Order upon written request of the producing
party.
8.

Subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, any confidential

information or documents may be offered into evidence at trial or any
Court hearing or in support of, or opposition to, a motion. Any party
may move the Court to prevent unnecessary disclosure of confidential
information and documents.
9.

In the event of a proven violation of this Agreed Protective

Order by any party or recipients of information designated as
confidential, the offending party or person understands that he or she
may, in the discretion of the Court, suffer the imposition of such
remedy or sanctions as the Court deems appropriate.
10.

This Agreed Protective Order will remain in effect until one

year after litigation ends, including any appeal.

Thereafter, the

obligations imposed shall continue, but shall be solely a matter of
contract between the parties and signatories. Upon termination of this
case, the parties shall return to their respective counsel all confidential

-4-

documents and material, along with any copies of those materials.
Counsel for the parties may retain confidential information in their
files, subject to this Agreed Protective Order.
So Ordered.

r
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-5-