Agler v. Westheimer Corporation
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING 21 MOTION for Protective Order (Agreed) by Plaintiff Darryl D Agler. Parties may submit a revised protective order as outlined in Opinion and Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 12/1/2014. (lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
DARRYL D. AGLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTHEIMER CORPORATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-99
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is an Agreed Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order, seeking
approval of a proposed Stipulated General Protective Order Concerning Confidential
Information (“Proposed Order”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Docket # 21.)
Rule 26(c)(1) allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. See Citizens
First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999). As the
proposed order is deficient in several ways, the motion will be DENIED.
First, the Proposed Order states in section I: “This Protective Order shall apply to the
named Parties to this Action and to any other non-party who produces or provides Discovery
Material in this action . . . .” (Emphasis added.) But on this record, the entry of a protective
order that relates to unknown non-parties is not justified. See Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v.
Dairilean, Inc., No. 10 C 8006, 2011 WL 1557881, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2011). “Issues
relating to third party compulsory disclosure are likely to be fact-specific and will be determined
as they arise” in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procure 45. Id. Therefore, the Court is
unwilling to adopt this term.
Section 1 also provides that the Order “shall remain in full force and effect after the
termination of this Action . . . .” 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. See 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).
In addition, section IV(A) of the Proposed Order appears to limit the Order’s terms to
discovery only, and thus, that no document or portion of a document would be maintained under
seal in the absence of an authorizing statute, court rule, or further leave of court. This section,
however, cites to the Local Rules for the Southern District of Indiana, rather than the Local
Rules for this Court; as such, the Court cannot approve this provision as written. The parties
should note that if the Court has correctly summarized this section’s meaning, then the definition
of “Confidential Information” provided in section II(A) may be adequate, despite several overlyinclusive statements therein.
In sum, 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.” Cincinnati
Insurance, 178 F.3d at 945-46. Accordingly, 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, No. IP 01-1103-C-H/K, 2003
WL 1702256, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2003).
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Agreed Motion for Entry of Stipulated
Protective Order. (Docket # 21.) The parties may, however, submit a revised protective order
2
consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c)(1) and Seventh Circuit case law.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 1st day of December 2014.
S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?