Corval Constructors, Inc v. Montana Dakota Utilities Co.
ORDER DENYING ENTRY OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 44 AND AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER 40 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan on 12/28/2016. (JDR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
Corval Constructors, Inc., a
ORDER DENYING ENTRY
Montana-Dakota Utilities, Co., a
Division of MDU Resources
Group, Inc., a Delaware
Defendant Montana-Dakota Utilities, Co., upon stipulation of
Plaintiff Corval Constructors, Inc., presented for the Court’s approval a
Stipulated Protective Order. (Doc. 44). As explained below, the Court
declines to enter the Stipulated Protective Order, and amends the
Scheduling Order entered on October 17, 2016 (Doc. 40).
The entry of protective orders is governed by L.R. 26.4, which
provides in pertinent part that “the motion for protective order…and
brief in support must be filed in the public record and must describe the
nature of the documents or items in a manner that, without revealing
information sought to be protected, enables assessment of the propriety
of a protective order.” L.R. 26.4(a)(2). In addition, any request that the
Court take a particular action must comply with the provisions of L.R.
7.1. That rule requires the submission of a written motion, and if
unopposed, a proposed order that complies with L.R. 7.1(c)(3).
The Court finds that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order fails
to comply with the provisions of either rule. Particularly with respect to
L.R. 26.4 (a)(2), the parties’ submission does not describe with sufficient
specificity the nature of the information the parties wish to be
protected. Rather, the Stipulated Protective Order explains that the
parties “stipulate and agree to designation as ‘Confidential’ of all
documents within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).” (Doc. 44 at 2). As
the scope of documents potentially included in this category is
practically limitless, the Court finds that the parties’ Stipulated
Protective Order is not in compliance with L.R. 26.4, and therefore
declines to approve it.
With that said, the Court supports the parties’ willingness to
cooperate with one another in the crafting of the Stipulated Protective
Order, and is not opposed to the parties operating under its terms if
that is their wish. They do not need to seek an order from this Court
approving its terms. If, in the future, the parties find that the
Stipulated Protective Order – or any other protective order to which
they agree – fails to protect their interests, one or both of them may
move the Court accordingly, so long as such motion complies with all
applicable rules, including L.R. 7.1 and 26.4 and the Scheduling Order
as amended below.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) The parties’ request that the Court approve their Stipulated
Protective Order (Doc. 44) is DENIED.
(2) The Scheduling Order is AMENDED to add the following
language to paragraph 7:
(d) If the parties can reach an agreement concerning the use
of certain confidential and financial commercial information
there is no need to seek a protective order from this Court.
Unless the parties can show that a negotiated and signed
stipulation is insufficient to protect their interests, no order
of this Court will be forthcoming concerning protective
DATED this 28th day of December, 2016.
/s/ Timothy J. Cavan
United States Magistrate Judge
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?