Hobson v. Trans Union LLC

Filing 73

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 72 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff Carol A Hobson, Defendant Trans Union LLC. The parties may, however, file a motion requesting the Court's approval of a revised protective order that cures the identified deficiency and is consistent with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) and Seventh Circuit case law. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 2/6/2014. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
CAROL A. HOBSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
TRANS UNION,
Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-54

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a revised proposed Protective Agreement and Order submitted by the
parties for the Court’s approval pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Docket #
72.) As the proposed order is still deficient in one material respect, it will be DENIED.
The proposed order still does not define “Confidential Information,” and simply allows
any party to designate material as confidential. The proposed order provides: “Any party or nonparty producing or filing documents or other materials in this action containing confidential
information may designate such materials and the information contained therein subject to this
Protective Agreement and Order by typing or stamping on the front of the document, or on the
portion(s) of the document for which confidential treatment is designated, “Confidential.”
(Proposed Protective Agreement and Order ¶ 1.)
As previously explained, a protective order must extend only to “properly demarcated
categor[ies] of legitimately confidential information.” 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 also MRS Invs. v. Meridian Sports,

Inc., No. IP 99-1954-C-F/M, 2002 WL 193140, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 6, 2002) (rejecting
proposed protective order because categories of protected information were overly broad and
vague); 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). Although the recitals of the proposed order
refer to Defendant’s “trade secrets, confidential research, development, technology and other
proprietary information of value”; Defendant’s documents that “contain business, financial, and
commercially sensitive information”; and Plaintiff’s “income, credit and other confidential
information,” the order fails to adequately flesh out these topics in properly demarcated
categories of “Confidential Information” in the body of the order. See Cincinnati Insurance, 178
F.3d at 945 (“The order is so loose that it amounts, as we suggested at the outset, to giving each
party carte blanche to decide what portions of the record shall be kept secret. Such an order is
invalid.”). And in any event, categories such as “confidential research,” “other proprietary
information,” “business, financial, and commercially sensitive information,” and “other
confidential information” are overly broad and vague. See id. at 946 (“There is no objection to an
order that allows the parties to keep their trade secrets (or some other properly demarcated
category of legitimately confidential information) out of the public record, provided the judge (1)
satisfies himself that the parties know what a trade secret is and are acting in good faith in
deciding which parts of the record are trade secrets . . . .”).
For this reason, the Court DENIES approval of the revised proposed Protective
Agreement and Order submitted by the parties. (Docket # 72.) The parties may, however, file a
motion requesting the Court’s approval of a revised protective order that cures the identified

2

deficiency and is consistent with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)
and Seventh Circuit case law.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 6th day of February, 2014.
S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

3