Flemming v. Gaetz et al

Filing 69

PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 8/2/13. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RON FLEMMING, #R63277
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD GAETZ, VIPIN SHAH, MRS.
BROWN, DIRECTOR GODINEZ, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 3:12-cv-00761

PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant Vipin Shah, M.D. seeks entry of a Protective Order relative to documents he
produces including, but not limited to, any and all policies and procedures produced in response
to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests.

A Protective Order is necessary and appropriate

pursuant to the terms of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court being
otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ordered:
1.

Copies of the documents Defendant Shah produces in this action stamped with the

phrase “Confidential and Subject to Protective Order” (the “protected documents”) shall be
protected and given confidential treatment as described in this Order.
2.

Plaintiff shall be permitted to inspect such documents at a mutually agreed upon

date and time in accordance with IDOC procedures and guidelines, but shall not be permitted to
photocopy or otherwise obtain copies of such documents without the Order of this Court.
3.

These protected documents shall be maintained in confidence by Defendant’s

counsel and shall not be disclosed to any person except:
a.

4374199.1

This Court and its officers;

b.
c.

Counsel for Defendants;

d.

Employees of counsel; and

e.
4.

Stenographic reporters;

Experts retained in this litigation.

Except as otherwise provided by this Order or by further order of the Court, the

protected documents shall be used for no purpose other than prosecuting or defending the abovecaptioned proceeding and shall be disclosed in the manner provided in and only to the persons
identified in Paragraphs 2 and 3, and they shall not be used in any other civil case, criminal case,
litigation, or matter.
5.

Individuals or entities permitted access to protected documents pursuant to

Paragraph 3 above are hereby ordered not to show, convey or reproduce any information or
document so designated, or parts thereof, or copies thereof, or any matter contained therein, or
any abstracts or summaries thereof, to any individual or to any entity who would not otherwise
have access to said material under the provisions of this order, unless they secure the written
consent of the designating party or obtain permission from this Court, upon motion and with
notice to all parties.
6.

Any party may apply to the Court for relief from, or modification of, this Order.

7.

This Order is without prejudice to the rights of any party to object to the

production of documents or information that it considers to be privileged, irrelevant or
immaterial, and shall not be considered a waiver of any applicable privilege or immunity from
discovery or as a concession by the designated party that such information is relevant or material
to any issue.

4374199.1

8.

This Order shall not prevent any of the protected documents from being used by

the Court or counsel of record at any trial or other proceeding in this action only, subject to such
confidentiality provisions as the Court may then prescribe.
9.

Following the termination of this litigation, whether by final judgment and appeal

or by settlement, the parties shall destroy or return the protected documents.
10.

This Protective Order shall remain in full force and effect after the termination of

this litigation, or until canceled, vacated or otherwise modified by order of this Court.
11.

In the event that either party wishes to file a document or information under seal,

that party must first file a motion in advance seeking to file the document[s] or information under
seal (With the limited exception of information covered by Local Rule 5.1(d)). When filing the
motion to seal, the party will contemporaneously submit the document[s] or information in
question to the Court for in camera review. The Court will then make an individualized
determination of whether any such document[s] or information can be filed under seal. See
Citizens First National Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999); Baxter Int.,
Inc. v. Abbot Labs. 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002); Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1073 - 76
(7th Cir. 2009). Any document or information filed under seal without prior Court approval will
be unsealed and become part of the public record.
12.

Anyone with knowledge of the contents of this order shall be bound by its terms.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 2, 2013

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

4374199.1

4374199.1