Fisher et al v. Your Friends & Neighbors Inc et al

Filing 135

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 132 Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by Pejus Inc, Your Friends & Neighbors Inc Employee Benefit Plan, Russell Chism, Your Friends & Neighbors of Indiana Inc, Your Friends & Neighbors of Georgia Inc, Jennifer Beemer , Emily Watson, Ernest M Beal, Jr, Kimberly Meyers, Jill Fisher, Your Friends & Neighbors Inc, Core Benfits Inc, Sophia Tabler-Adams, Kimberly Wagner, Cheryl Huesner, Ernie Beal, Rosewater Inc. The parties may submit a revised protective order that cures the identified deficiencies and is consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c)(1) and Seventh Circuit case law. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 6/4/2012. (lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JILL FISHER, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
YOUR FRIENDS & NEIGHBORS, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-38

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Approve Stipulated Protective Order filed by the
parties, seeking approval of a proposed protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c). (Docket # 132.) As the proposed order is deficient in two ways, it will be
DENIED.
First, the definition of “Confidential Personal Information” and “Confidential Business
Information” in paragraph 5 includes documents that “contain” certain confidential information,
rather than protecting solely the confidential information itself. This renders the redaction
provision in paragraph 7 less effective. The proposed order should provide for the
contemporaneous public filing of a redacted version of the document (in which only the actual
confidential material is redacted, not any document “containing” confidential material) when an
unredacted version is filed under seal. See Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati
Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). It is important to remember that “the public at large
pays for the courts and therefore has an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial
proceeding.” Id.

Second, paragraph 20 of the proposed order suggests that the Order may be amended by
the written agreement of the parties. However, an order of the Court cannot be modified simply
through written agreement of the parties, as the Court must ensure that the amendment conforms
with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) and Seventh Circuit case law.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES approval of the proposed agreed protective order
(Docket # 132). Of course, the parties may submit a revised protective order that cures these
identified deficiencies and is consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c)(1) and Seventh
Circuit case law.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 4th day of June, 2012.
S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

2