Manker, Jr. et al v. The Zurich Services Corporation

Filing 38

ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Order re 30 Order on Motion for Protective Order is amended to include the foregoing modification. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 8/13/2012. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
LAWRENCE MANKER, JR. and
STEPHANIE HUNT, as Administrator of
the Estate of Malcolm Carlton Frazier,
deceased and KENDRA FRAZIER, as
child of Malcolm Carlton Frazier,
deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.

4:12-cv-89

THE
ZURICH
CORPORATION,

SERVICES

Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is the parties’
“Proposed Consent Protective Order,” which
this Court treats as a joint motion for a
protective order. See Doc. 29. The
proposed order sets forth the process by
which the parties agree to handle documents
or information baring the label
“Confidential,” “Attorneys Eyes Only,” or
other similar designation. See id. at 4.
“The [C]ourt may, for good cause, issue
an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense . . . .” F ED. R. C IV.
P. 26(c)(1). “[T]he sole criterion for
determining the validity of a protective order
is the statutory requirement of ‘good
cause.’” In re Alexander Grant & Co.
Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir.
1987).
The Eleventh Circuit has approved the
use of umbrella protective orders “to

expedite the flow of discovery material and
to protect the confidentiality of documents.”
World Triathlon Corp., Inc. v. Textron, Inc.,
2007 WL 215215, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25,
2007) (citing In re Alexander Grant & Co.
Litigation and McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of
Polk County, 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir.
1989)).
The parties’ motion presents such an
umbrella order. The Court finds that, “[f]or
purposes of discovery and preventing the
parties from litigating the issue of
confidentiality as to each document, the
parties' stipulation serves a useful purpose.”
Id. Accordingly, the Court approves the
protective order with the following
modification.
“[A]n individual has no common law
right to discovery material because those
materials are not judicial records or public
documents.” McCarthy, 876 F.2d at 91.
Nevertheless, “[i]t is clear that the courts of
this country recognize a general right to
inspect and copy public records and
documents, including judicial records and
documents.” Nixon v. Warner
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978). “It is uncontested, however, that the
right to inspect and copy judicial records is
not absolute. Every court has supervisory
power over its own records and files, and
access has been denied where court files
might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes.” Id. at 598. Accordingly, “the
common-law right of access requires a
balancing of competing interests.” Chicago
Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001).

This District’s Local Rules do not permit
a party to self-seal its own filings; unless
otherwise authorized by law or the Local
Rules, a party must first obtain judicial
permission to seal. S.D. GA. L.R. 79.7(a).
Should a party in this case wish to file a
document under seal in this Court, they may
follow the procedure set out in the Local
Rules. See S.D. GA. L.R. 79.7(b).
CONCLUSION

The Magistrate Judge’s order granting
the parties’ motion for a protective order,
see Doc. 30, is AMENDED to include the
foregoing modification.

This 13th day of August 2012.

R- AVANT PDENFIELO, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2