Radmer et al v. Royal Neighbors of America

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 3/1/2016 DENYING parties' request for protective order. See Order for details. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BRIDGET RADMER, and KIMBERLY RADMER,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-

Case No. 15-C-770

ROYAL NEIGHBORS OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER
The parties filed a stipulation and proposed protective order (ECF No.
13) for the Court’s consideration. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows
the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. The Court must
have sufficient facts to make an independent finding of good cause.

See

Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 1994)
(holding that even if the parties agree that a protective order should be
entered, they still have the burden of showing that good cause exists for
issuance of that order). To satisfy the good cause showing, the parties must
make a particular and specific demonstration of fact; conclusory statements
are not sufficient. See Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n. 16 (1981)
(quoting 8 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 2035 (1970)). Additionally, a protective order must only extend to
“properly demarcated categor[ies] of legitimately confidential information.”
See Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943,

946 (7th Cir. 1999).
The parties stipulate that “the materials exchanged in the course of
this litigation may contain confidential information including but not limited
to trade secrets or nonpublic confidential technical, commercial, financial,
personal, or business information.”

The parties do not provide any facts

indicating why the discovery materials in this action are likely to contain such
information. Additionally, the phrase “including but not limited to” renders
the category of proposed confidential documents overbroad. In other words,
the parties have not described a “properly demarcated category of
information.”

Thus, in its present form the Court may not approve the

proposed protective order. The parties may file a revised proposed protective
order and any additional materials they deem necessary to comply with the
requirements outlined by this decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The parties’ request for a protective order (ECF No. 13) is DENIED
without prejudice.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 1st day of March, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-2-