Marine Travelift Inc v. ASCOM SpA et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying without prejudice 18 Motion for Protective Order, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 06/27/2014. The Court is unaware of any authority for destroying material contained within the public record. The parties may either submit a revised protective order or provide some authority for the provision requiring destruction of materials filed with the court. SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAIL. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MARINE TRAVELIFT INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-C-443

ASCOM SpA,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

The parties have stipulated to a protective order which in large part simply concerns how
they will handle the discovery exchange between them. One aspect of the proposed order, however,
is problematic. Paragraph XIX(a) states that, upon expiration of the time for appeal from any order
issued in connection with the action, the parties “shall remove any Protected Materials from the
office of the Clerk of the Court. Following that 60-day period, the Clerk of Court shall destroy all
Protected Materials.”
The Court is unaware of any authority for destroying material contained within the public
record. Exhibits that are submitted in support of the case can be withdrawn or destroyed after time
for appeal, but filings, pleadings and materials of that nature remain even after the case is closed
insofar as this Court is aware. Accordingly, the motion is denied. The denial, however, is without
prejudice and the parties may either submit a revised protective order or provide some authority for
the provision requiring destruction of materials filed with the court.
Dated this

27th

day of June, 2014.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court