Gensel v. Performant Recovery Inc

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 12/2/2014 DENYING 52 Motion to Seal Document. Performant can renew its motion within 10 days of the date of this Order; Clerk of Court directed to publicly file documents if motion not timely renewed. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LENNETT GENSEL,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-1196

PERFORMANT TECHNOLOGIES, Inc.,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Performant Technologies,
Inc.’s motion to seal the Declarations of David Lubets and Rashid Nasim,
in addition to Performant’s memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment. Performant’s motion refers to the
protective order entered in this case, but a protective order is not “a virtual
carte blanche to either party to seal whatever portions of the record the
party want[s] to seal. … The parties to a lawsuit are not the only people
who have a legitimate interest in the record compiled in a legal
proceeding.” Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.,
178 F.3d 943, 944 (7th Cir. 1999). Moreover, Performant’s request is not
narrowly tailored in the sense that it requests whole documents be placed
under seal, as opposed to a particular line, page, or paragraph that

contains confidential or proprietary information. Gen. L. R. 79, committee
comment (E.D. Wis.)
Therefore, Performant’s motion to seal [ECF No. 52] is DENIED
without prejudice to its renewal within ten (10) days of the date of this
Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to publicly file these documents if
Performant does not timely renew its motion.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 2nd day of December, 2014.
SO ORDERED:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-2-