Loxton v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING 17 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. Parties may submit a revised protective order as outlined in Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 1/26/2015. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
KIMBERLY LOXTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, d/b/a Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-183

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Protective Order (Docket # 17),
seeking approval of a proposed Agreed Protective Order submitted by the parties pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Although the proposed Order is limited to pretrial
discovery only–and thus, an additional Court order is required for any document to be filed
under seal–the proposed Order still has at least one material deficiency that precludes its
approval.
Paragraph 21 of the proposed Order provides that the Court will retain jurisdiction for
one year following the termination of the action to make any amendments, modifications, and
additions to the Order and to resolve disputes concerning the disposition of materials. 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. 3:07cv-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 22 states that the Order “may be amended by the written agreement of
counsel for the Parties in the form of a stipulation that shall be approved by the Court and filed
herein.” To clarify, the Court does not agree to approve any and all amendments stipulated to by
the parties; rather, the Order will be amended only if the Court approves and adopts the
stipulated amendment.
Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice the Joint Motion for Agreed Protective
Order. (Docket # 17.) The parties may submit a revised protective order that cures the identified
deficiency and is consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c) and Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals case law.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 26th day of January, 2015.
S/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins,
United States Magistrate Judge

2