Herx v. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend Inc et al

Filing 80

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 78 MOTION for Protective Order (Unopposed) by Defendants Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend Inc, St Vincent de Paul School. The parties may submit a revised protective order consistent with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) and Seventh Circuit case law. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 5/8/13. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
EMILY HERX,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIOCESE OF FORT WAYNE-SOUTH
BEND, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:12-CV-122

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is an Unopposed Motion for Protective Order (Docket # 78) filed by
Defendants, seeking the approval of a proposed protective order stipulated to by the Defendants.
The proposed order is limited to pre-trial discovery only; if a party desires that information be
sealed from public record, the party must comply with Local Rule 5.3 and make a showing of
good cause in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Nevertheless, because the
proposed order contains several defects, it will be DENIED.
Paragraph 13 states that the Court “retains jurisdiction to make such amendments,
modifications and additions to [the] Order as the Court may from time to time deem
appropriate.” But the Court is unwilling to enter a protective order that suggests the Court retain
jurisdiction of any kind after the resolution of the case. E.E.O.C. v. Clarice’s Home Care Serv.,
Inc., No. 3:07-cv-601 GPM, 2008 WL 345588, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2008) (encouraging the
parties to make a contractual agreement among themselves for the return of sensitive documents
without court oversight); see also Large v. Mobile Tool Int’l, Inc., No. 1:02-CV-177, 2010 WL
3120254, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 6, 2010).

Also, paragraph 14 of the proposed order provides that it may be amended “by the
written agreement of counsel for the Parties in the form of a stipulation . . . .” An order of the
Court, however, cannot be modified simply through 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.
Additionally, although the Defendants title the motion as “Unopposed,” they do not
represent in the body of the motion that they have contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and that Plaintiff
does not object to the motion.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Protective
Orders (Docket # 78). The parties may submit a revised protective order consistent with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) and Seventh Circuit case law.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 8th day of May, 2013.
S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

2