Entertainment USA Inc v. Moorehead Communications Inc
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 21 Amended Joint Motion for a Protective Order filed by Moorehead Communications Inc, Entertainment USA Inc. The parties may submit a revised protective order consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c) and Seventh Circuit case law. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 10/19/2012. (lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ENTERTAINMENT USA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOOREHEAD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:12-CV-116
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is an agreed motion by the parties seeking approval of an amended
proposed protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Docket # 21.) As
the proposed order is still deficient in several respects, it will be DENIED.
The proposed order’s definition of “Confidential Information” is imprecisely defined,
making it overly broad. It states that Confidential Information “shall include . . . personal
identifying information (individual names and telephone numbers) for wireless customers.”
(Proposed First Amended Agreed Protective Order ¶ 3 (emphasis added).) Because of the term
“include” in the definition, Confidential Information is not limited solely to the personal
identifying information. See Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178
F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999) (noting that a broad protective order granting carte blanche
discretion to a party is invalid); see Cook Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 206 F.R.D. 244, 248-49
(S.D. Ind. 2001); Andrew Corp. v. Rossi, 180 F.R.D. 338, 342 (N.D. Ill. 1998). “[A] court must
ensure that (1) the information sought to be protected falls within a legitimate category of
confidential information, (2) the information or category sought to be protected is properly
described or demarcated, and (3) the parties know the defining elements of the applicable
category of confidentiality . . . .” MRS Invs. v. Meridian Sports, Inc., No. IP 99-1954-C-F/M,
2002 WL 193140, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 6, 2002).
In addition, paragraphs 16 and 17 of the proposed Order contemplate the return to the
parties of documents filed under seal. However, the Court will not agree to return any
documents once filed, whether under seal or otherwise.
And finally, paragraph 18 states that the Order “shall remain in full force and effect until
such time as it is modified, amended or rescinded by the Court or until such time as the Parties
may petition the Court to modify or amend its terms . . . .” (Emphasis added). But an order of the
Court cannot be modified, amended, or rescinded simply upon the filing of a petition by the
parties seeking such action.
To reiterate, a protective order “may not issue absent an appropriate showing of good
cause, as well as adherence to the other limitations the Seventh Circuit has emphasized apply to
such orders.” Shepard v. Humke, IP 01-1103-C-H/K, 2003 WL 1702256, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Mar.
28, 2003). Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion for approval of the proposed first amended
agreed protective order. (Docket # 21.) The parties, however, may submit a revised protective
order consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c) and Seventh Circuit case law.
SO ORDERED. Enter for this 19th day of October, 2012.
S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?