Boring v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company et al

Filing 49

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/11/16 denying the parties' joint motion for a protective order. (Related Doc. 48 ) (D,MA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: AUDRA BORING, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE : COMPANY, et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------- Case No. 1:16-CV-00869 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 48] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On October 7, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion for a protective order.1 The protective order would “allow Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with access to documents and information . . . while protecting confidential information contained therein.”2 Neither the motion nor the proposed order, however, specifically identify what type of information warrants a protective order.3 While the Court would consider a motion to protect policy holders’ personal identifying information, the motion as written is unduly broad. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 11, 2016 1 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Doc. 48. Id. 3 The motion relies on form language in the Court’s Civil Rules Appendix L: “Any party may designate documents . . . that contain information protected from disclosure by statute or that should be protected from disclosure as confidential personal information, medical or psychiatric information, trade secrets, personnel records or such other sensitive commercial information that is not publicly available.” Id. 2

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?