CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Chicago Bancorp, Inc.

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to modify the protective order [#26 ] is GRANTED. Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order entered July 27, 2012, is hereby modified as indicated herein. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 01/08/2013. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHICAGO BANCORP, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:12-CV-00246 CDP
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
As part of its Rule 26 disclosures, plaintiff produced to defendant loan
documents that included redacted contact information for certain borrowers. The
parties then stipulated to a protective order allowing plaintiff to unredact the
contact information. I entered that order on December 4, 2012.
However, the unredacted borrower contact information remains subject to
the general protective order previously entered in this case. As such, it is
designated as “confidential,” and under the terms of the protective order, cannot be
used for any purpose other than in furtherance of this litigation.1
Defendant now seeks to amend the general protective order so it may use the
contact information for another purpose: namely, so that it may pursue any claims
1

(See Protective Order entered July 27, 2012, ¶ 4 (“...[N]o party or other person shall use or
disclose any Confidential Information governed by this Protective Order for any purpose other
than the prosecution, defense or settlement of the captioned action.”)).

it has against the borrowers, “including using the borrowers’ addresses for service
of process.” (Def.’s Mot. to Modify Protective Order, ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff opposes the motion, raising three objections. First, plaintiff points
out that the language initially proposed by defendant was broader than necessary to
achieve this limited additional use. Defendant adequately addresses this concern
by proposing more restrictive language in its reply.
Second, plaintiff contends that defendant failed to comply with the “meet
and confer” process set out in the general protective order before seeking relief
from the court. Although the protective order itself does not actually require that
the parties communicate before moving to modify its restrictions, counsel are
always required to consult with one another before filing discovery motions. In
this case, I conclude that the parties’ pre-motion communication – or lack thereof –
is not a sufficient reason to deny the modification, which is otherwise reasonable.
Finally, plaintiff argues defendant has not made the requisite showing that
would entitle it to modify the protective order. Modification of a protective order
is within the discretion of the trial court. See Rogers v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
107 F.R.D. 351, 352 (E.D. Mo. 1985) (citing Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. v. Bagley,
601 F.2d 949 (8th Cir. 1979)). “Blanket” protective orders entered “without a
showing of good cause for confidentiality as to any individual documents” are
“peculiarly subject to later modification.” Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc.,
–2–

858 F.2d 775, 790 (1st Cir. 1988). See also MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIG.,
(FOURTH) § 11.432 (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122
(3d Cir. 1986)).
In light of the breadth of the July 27 Order, which was entered without
particularized showings of good cause for confidentiality, and the fact that
allowing limited use of the borrower contact information outside this action will
not prejudice plaintiff, I find there is good cause to modify the order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to modify the
protective order [# 26] is GRANTED. Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order entered
July 27, 2012, is hereby modified and now states:
Each party and all persons bound by the terms of this protective Order
shall use any Confidential Information governed by this Protective
Order only for the purposes of prosecution, defense or settlement of
the captioned action or for prosecution or settlement of an action or
claim by Chicago Bancorp, Inc. against a borrower to enforce a
transaction that is a subject of the captioned action (including for
service of process to do so); no party or other person shall use or
disclose any Confidential Information governed by this Protective
Order for any purpose other than a purpose permitted by the first
clause of this sentence.

Dated this 8th day of January, 2013.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

–3–