Alexander v. Allen et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting 50 the Parties' Stipulation and Joint Motion Regarding Protection of Confidentiality of Information. The Order Regarding Protection of Confidentiality of Information will be entered under separate cover. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 8/14/2014. (BLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
STUART ALEXANDER, an
individual,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-885-FtM-29CM

JAMES F. ALLEN and HERTEL
PARK ASSOCIATES I, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion Regarding
Protection of Confidentiality of Information (Doc. 50), filed on August 13, 2014. The
parties have stipulated to the terms of a Confidentiality Agreement and request that
the Court enter same. The parties contend that entry of a confidentiality order is
necessary to protect documents and information designated as confidential by the
parties. Specifically, the parties represent that certain information in this case may
include confidential and proprietary information. Thus, the parties contend that
entry of the stipulated order will facilitate ongoing discovery efforts without violating
the privacy interests of the parties.
The Court has “broad discretion in setting limits on discovery, and Rule 26(c)
provides a mechanism by which parties can seek an order to protect privileged or
confidential information.” Shire Development LLC v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., No. 8:12cv-1190-T-30AEP, 2013 WL 6858319, at * 3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2013) (citing

Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Generally, when determining whether there is good cause to enter a protective order,
the Court “balance[s] the requesting party’s interest in obtaining the information or
material sought and the other party’s interest in keeping the information
confidential.” Id.
Stipulated protective orders, however, have become “commonplace in the
federal courts.” Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304,
1307 (11th Cir. 2001). Entering a stipulated protective order “replaces the need to
litigate the claim to protection document by document, and postpones the necessary
showing of ‘good cause’ required for entry of a protective order until the confidential
designation is challenged.” Id. “Parties have the freedom and flexibility to agree
on the terms of stipulated protective orders designed to protect ‘confidential’ and
‘highly confidential’ material.” Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., No. 12-24356-CIV, 2013
WL 4773433, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2013). Thus, “[u]nless the agreement contains
provisions that are illegal, unlawful, against public policy, contrary to applicable
rules, confusing or otherwise problematic, courts typically enter the proposed
stipulated protective orders jointly submitted by the parties.” Id.
The Court has reviewed the Confidentiality Agreement, which is signed by
both parties, and determines that the Motion for its entry is due to be granted. The
Confidentiality Agreement will be entered under separate cover.

-2-

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
The Stipulation and Joint Motion Regarding Protection of Confidentiality of
Information (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.

The Order Regarding Protection of

Confidentiality of Information will be entered under separate cover.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 14th day of August, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-