Muller v. Humacare -Consolidated Employment Management, Inc. et al

Filing 22

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR THE PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 2/2/2018. (ew)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
EDWIN JOSEPH MULLER III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HUMACARE - CONSOLIDATED
EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, INC.
D/B/A/ IRONROAD, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:17-cv-00882-EAS-KAJ
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Jolson

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR THE
PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Plaintiff Edwin Joseph Muller III and Defendants HumaCare - Consolidated Employee
Management, Inc., Spartan Warehouse and Distribution Company Incorporated, HumaCare, Inc.,
Harmon Family LLC, Steve Harmon, Claude Edward Harmon, and William Southerland
(collectively, “Defendants”) are presently engaged in discovery in the above-referenced matter.
As part of that process, the parties have agreed to produce documents containing (1) private and
confidential information about the Plaintiff or about Defendants and/or their employees, and/or
(2) other information that would damage the parties’ legitimate interests if disseminated to the
public (collectively, “Confidential Information”). Accordingly, in consideration of these factors,
Plaintiff and Defendants hereby agree:
1.

Pages produced by any party in response to written discovery requests that

contain Confidential Information will be marked “Confidential.”
2.

Pages produced by any party in response to written discovery requests may be

marked as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” only if those pages contain extremely sensitive commercial
information or extremely sensitive personal information that cannot be disclosed under the

designation of “Confidential” without a high probability of a serious, specific harm to the
designating party. The Attorneys’ Eyes Only designation shall be used—if at all—as sparingly
as possible, and, as a general matter, information relating to the financial status of the
Defendants, the insurance rates associated with insuring or potentially insuring Plaintiff and his
family and/or Defendants’ employees, the alleged basis for terminating Plaintiff, and the loss of
the State of Ohio liquor contract by Spartan Logistics, will not be designated as Attorneys’ Eyes
Only. Further, a party may only designate a document as Attorneys’ Eyes Only if the party has a
good faith belief that the information contained in the document meets the above definition.
Access to and disclosure of Attorneys’ Eyes Only Material marked and identified in
accordance with this Stipulated Protective Order shall be limited solely to the Court, its officers
and its clerical staff and to attorneys for the parties, staff members assisting attorneys for the
parties, and expert witnesses retained by the parties. Attorneys’ Eyes Only Material shall not be
provided, shown, made available or communicated in any way to any person or entity other than
provided for in this paragraph.
3.

Collectively, documents designated as “Confidential” and “Attorneys’ Eyes

Only” are referred to as “Confidential Discovery Material.”
4.

Any information that cannot be so labeled may be designated as “Confidential” or

“Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by informing counsel for the parties in writing that it is “Confidential”
or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only”. Such designation shall be done either before or simultaneously with
production.
5.

Portions of deposition transcripts may be designated as Confidential Discovery

Material on the record during the deposition or may be designated by an e-mail or e-mailed letter
that identifies the page and line number of the Confidential Discovery Material and is sent as

2

quickly as practical after the transcript is received (even if in rough form) and, in any event, not
more than 10 business days after the transcript is received (even if in rough form). After such
designation, such portions of the deposition transcripts shall be treated as Confidential Discovery
Material under this Stipulated Protective Order. Only those portions of a deposition transcript
that a Party believes in good faith to contain information that is Confidential Discovery Material
shall be designated as such.
6.

The parties and their counsel may use Confidential Discovery Material only for

purposes of this case, and not for any other purpose. Further, the parties and their counsel agree
that they will not disseminate or distribute Confidential Discovery Material to third parties (i.e.,
parties not involved in this action) without first obtaining prior written consent from the
producing party and/or the Court and only after the third parties have been advised of the
existence of this Order and have signed a copy of the “Acknowledgment Of Confidentiality
Order and Agreement To Be Bound” as set forth as “Exhibit A” to this Order.
7.

If, during this case, a party or its counsel desires to share Confidential Discovery

Material with a third-party witness for purposes of this case, they may do so only for purposes of
this case and only after the third party has been advised of the existence of this Order and has
signed a copy of the “Acknowledgment Of Confidentiality Order and Agreement To Be Bound”
as set forth as “Exhibit A” to this Order. Copies of Confidential Discovery Materials will not be
given to or retained by anyone other than the parties and their counsel.
8.

After this case is concluded, and in accordance with the respective parties’

document retention policies, each party, upon a request from another party that produced
Confidential Discovery Material, will promptly destroy or return all Confidential Discovery
Material to the producing party.

3

Notwithstanding the foregoing, counsel for the parties may retain in his or her file one
copy of all discovery requests, and all filings in this action. Counsel may also retain attorney
work product, regardless whether such work product refers to Confidential Discovery Material.
9.

The parties agree to work together to maintain the confidentiality of the

Confidential Discovery Material. If a party believes that a document that has been designated as
Confidential Discovery Material does not qualify as such under this Order, then that party will
first try to work the issue out with the other party. If the parties cannot resolve the issue, they
will follow the Court’s procedures for resolving discovery disputes.
10.

If any Confidential Discovery Material must be filed in connection with this

proceeding or any subsequent appeals, the filing party must make a good-faith effort to confer
with the other parties regarding how to proceed and best protect the Confidential Discovery
Material. If the parties agree that the Confidential Discovery Material should be filed under seal,
the filing party shall move to file the Confidential Discovery Material under seal.
If the parties are not able to reach an agreement on whether or how to file
Confidential Discovery Material, the filing party shall file a motion to resolve the dispute. All
discovery disputes will be handled pursuant to the local rules. If a party files a motion pursuant
to this paragraph, the other parties hereby agree to consent to extensions of the deadline for the
party to file the filing that is the subject of that motion.
This Order does not authorize filing protected materials under seal. No document
may be filed with the Court under seal without prior permission as to each such filing, upon
motion and good cause shown, including the legal basis for filing under seal. See Proctor &
Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996). Unless the Court orders
otherwise, all sealed documents shall be filed according to S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2.1 and the

4

policies and procedures set forth in the Court’s CM/ECF online resources. If a party moves for
leave to file under seal and the Court denies the filing party leave to file under seal, then the
filing party shall be entitled to file the Confidential Discovery Material without filing under seal.
11.

In the event additional parties join or are joined in this action, they shall not have

access to material marked “Confidential” until the newly joined party, by its counsel, has
executed and filed with the Court its agreement to be fully bound by this Order.
12.

In the event that any party to this Order inadvertently discloses documents or

other materials protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, regardless
of whether the documents or other materials are produced pursuant to this Order, the party
receiving such documents or materials shall immediately return the documents or material upon
request and shall not retain any copies or use the documents or materials in any way.
13.

This Court may modify this Order as appropriate. At all times, the burden of

proving that something qualifies as Confidential Discovery Material remains with the party
asserting the confidentiality.
SO ORDERED:
Date: February 2, 2018

s/Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

STIPULATED:
/s/ Todd H. Neuman
Todd H. Neuman (0059819)
Jeffrey R. Corcoran (0088822)
Allen Keuhnle Stovall & Neuman LLP
17 South High Street, Suite 1220
Columbus, OH 43215
614-221-8500 – phone
412-221-5988 – fax
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

/s/ Tessa L. Castner [email authority on 22-2018]
Jeffrey N. Lindemann (0053073)
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
One Columbus, Suite 2300
10 West Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215-3467
614-464-1211 – phone
614-464-1737 – fax
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Edwin Joseph Muller III

Tessa L. Castner (0093808)
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
3300 Great American Tower
301 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
513-651-6800 – phone
513-651-6981 – fax
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants HumaCare Consolidated Employee Management, Inc.,
HumaCare, Inc., and William Southerland

/s/ Carolyn A. Davis [email authority on 21-2018]
Pamela S. Krivda (0041133)
Carolyn A. Davis (0084905)
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
65 E. State Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, OH 43215
614-221-2838 – phone
614-221-2007 – fax
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys
for
Defendants
Spartan
Warehouse and Distribution Company
Incorporated, Harmon Family LLC, Steve
Harmon, and Claude Edward Harmon

6

EXHIBIT A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
EDWIN JOSEPH MULLER III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HUMACARE - CONSOLIDATED
EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, INC.
D/B/A/ IRONROAD, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:17-cv-00882-EAS-KAJ
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge Jolson

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
ORDER AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND
I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of __________________
_______________ [print or type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read
in its entirety and understand the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the case of Muller v. HumaCare Consolidated Employee Management, et al.. I agree to comply with and to be bound by all the
terms of this Stipulated Protective Order. I promise that I will not disclose in any manner any
information or item that is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order to any person or entity
except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order.
I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated Protective
Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action.

Signature:
Printed name:
Date:
City and State where sworn and signed:

8