McNamee v. Family Focus Inc

Filing 34

OPINION AND ORDER: Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO REFILE 31 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 11/20/2015. cc: McNamee (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
CORY MCNAMEE,
Plaintiff,

)
)
) CAUSE NO. 2:14-CV-260-JTM-PRC
)
)
)
)

vs.
FAMILY FOCUS, INC.,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order [DE 31], filed
by Defendant Family Focus, Inc. on November 2, 2015. Plaintiff Cory McNamee has not filed a
response, and the time to do so has passed.
Paragraphs 5.c. and 11 of the proposed Protective Order mandate procedures for handling
confidential discovery material which involve filing documents under seal without making a motion
for leave to file under seal. The Court declines to enter these provisions because the Court requires
such motions to be made as filings under seal cannot be maintained unless authorized by statute,
Court rule, or Court order. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 5-3.
Further, Paragraph 14 provides: “The terms of this Protective Order shall survive any
settlement, discontinuance, dismissal, judgment, or other disposition of this action. This Protective
Order may be modified by further Order of the Court upon application to the Court with notice and
opportunity to be heard to the parties hereto.” This provision requires the Court to retain jurisdiction
over the Protective Order after the close of the case, something the Court cannot do. “The Court is
unwilling to enter a protective order that requires the Court to retain jurisdiction . . . after the
resolution of the case.” E.E.O.C. v. Clarice’s Home Care Serv., Inc., No. 03:07-cv-601 GPM, 2008
WL 345588, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2008).

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice and with leave to
refile Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order [DE 31] without provisions prescribing the filing
of documents under seal without the Court’s permission or requiring the Court to retain jurisdiction
over the Protective Order after the resolution of this case. Because Plaintiff filed no response to the
instant motion, if Defendant refiles the motion making changes in accordance with this Order, the
Court will not accept a response to the refiled motion.
So ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2015.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record
Cory McNamee, pro se

2