Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-113 JVB.
May 2, 2008
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff and Defendants submitted a Stipulated Protective Order on April 18, 2008, requesting that this Court issue a protective order covering various information in the underlying litigation. For the following reasons, this Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties' motion for a protective order [Doc. No. 51]. The parties may resubmit a proposed protective order which comports with Seventh Circuit precedent for this Court's consideration.
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
When granting a proposed protective order, this Court must independently determine whether "good cause" exists to seal the requested information from the public record. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c); Citizens First National Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944 (7th Cir. 1999). In doing so, this Court must not grant parties carte blanche to seal or protect whatever they desire. Citizens, 178 F.3d at 944; See also Pierson v. Indianapolis Power Light Co., 205 F.R.D. 646, 647 (S.D. Ind. 2002) ("Independent and careful evaluations of protective orders are especially important because `[t]he judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process. . . .'") (quoting Citizens, 178 F.3d at 945). In other words, this Court cannot serve as a rubber stamp whenever parties wish to seal public records, but must review all requests to seal documents in light of the public interest in the judicial process. Citizens, 178 F.3d at 945 (citing In re Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1992); Miller, Arthur M., Confidentiality, Protective Orders, and Public Access to the Courts, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 427, 492 (1991)).
When reviewing an agreed protective order seeking to seal documents produced in discovery, this Court must ensure that "(1) the information sought to be protected falls within a legitimate category of confidential information, (2) the information or category sought to be protected is properly described or demarcated, (3) the parties know the defining elements of the applicable category of confidentiality and will act in good faith in deciding which information qualifies thereunder, and (4) the protective order explicitly allows any party and any interested member of the public to challenge the sealing of particular documents." Pierson, 205 F.R.D. at 647 (citing Citizens, 178 F.3d at 946).
II. ANALYSIS
III. ANCILLARY MATTERS
Citizens specific Jessup v. Luther227 F.3d 993 997 explicitly Pierson205 F.R.D. at 647Citizens178 F.3d at 945-46 See14Citizens DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE STRICKEN ORDERED RETURNED after DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE STRICKEN. DENIED.
The parties are instructed that a proposed form of order must be re-submitted along with each motion, even re-submitted motions. See N.D. L.R. 5.1(e) ("The filing of a motion or petition requiring the entry of a routine or uncontested order by the judge or the clerk shall be accompanied by a suitable form of order together with sufficient copies thereof for service upon all parties or their counsel."); General Order 2007-4, User Manual for the United States District Court Northern District of Indiana, Part II-F (indicating proposed order shall be in WordPerfect or Rich Text Format and emailed to appropriate chambers inbox).
Defendants' counsel is instructed to first file her renewed motion for a protective order. Once there has been Court action on that motion, then counsel may resubmit her emergency motion to seal. The Court sympathizes with counsel's desire to have everything sealed immediately, but contemporaneously filing motions that are predicated upon motions that have not received Court action or orders that have not been entered is pre-emptive and confusing.