Tilot Oil LLC v. BP Products North America Inc

Filing 34

ORDER that the stipulated protective order (Docket No. 33) is STRICKEN without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Rudolph T Randa on 08/12/2009. (cc: all counsel)(Koll, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

T IL O T OIL LLC, P l a i n t i f f, v. B P PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant. C a s e No. 09-C-0210

D E C I S I O N AND ORDER

T h e parties filed a stipulated protective order, which is signed by counsel for th e parties. The stipulated protective order defines confidential material as documents which c o n ta in or comprise "employees' health care information, proprietary, business and/or te c h n ic a l information and/or trade secret information." There are a number of problems with the stipulated protective order. The order is not limited to the pretrial stages of this litigation, (Stipulated Protective Order ¶ 12). See C itiz e n ' s First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1 9 9 9 ) The parties' list of materials that they intend to designate as confidential is too broad. See id. Moreover, the stipulated protective order does not conform with the requirements o f the controlling case law that it set forth a factual basis for the Court to find good cause for th e sealing of documents that the parties intend to designate as "confidential material." See id . at 946. The document also bears no signature line for the Court. See id.

F e d e ra l Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows the Court to enter a protective o rd e r only upon a showing of "good cause." The parties' agreement that good cause exists f o r sealing specific materials produced during discovery and that a protective order should b e entered is insufficient. See Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 858-59 (7 th Cir. 1994). See also, Citizen's First Nat'l Bank of Princeton, 178 F.3d at 945-46 (noting th a t most cases endorse a presumption of public access to discovery materials). Rather, the p a rtie s must provide the Court with sufficient information so that it may make an independent d e te rm in a tio n of whether "good cause" exists for the sealing of the subject investigation files a n d entry of the protective order. See id. Thus, the Court strikes the stipulated protective order without prejudice. If the p a rtie s want to obtain a protective order, they must give careful consideration to the types of m a te ria ls that may be properly designated as "confidential." For businesses, such as the p a rtie s, to propose sealing materials that contain or comprise "business and/or technical in f o rm a tio n " is clearly overbroad. The parties would also need to file a brief statement of any f a cts that they believe establish good cause to seal the subject information, and provide for th e Court's issuance of the protective order. Any proposed protective order that the parties s u b m it should include a statement that the Court has found that good cause exists for sealing th e subject information. The Court will then consider the parties' submissions and determine w h e th e r the proposed protective order should be granted.

2

N O W , THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D THAT: The stipulated protective order (Docket No. 33) is STRICKEN without p re ju d ic e . Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 12th day of August, 2009. BY THE COURT

s / Rudolph T. Randa Hon. Rudolph T. Randa C h ie f Judge

3