Opinion
Case No. 03-2165-KHV
December 4, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order (doc. 9). The parties seek a protective order that will allow them to designate as confidential certain commercial, financial, and personal information that is produced in this litigation, and to limit the use of such confidential information. The parties' proposed Protective Order contains a blanket provision that would permit the parties to file under seal any document that is designated as confidential.
The decision whether to enter a protective order lies within the sound discretion of the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) provides that the court, upon a showing of good cause, "may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." The Scheduling Order entered in this case provides that all "jointly proposed protective orders shall include . . . a concise but sufficiently specific recitation of the particular facts in this case that would provide the court with an adequate basis upon which to make the required finding of good cause pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)."
Thomas v. IBM, 48 F.3d 478, 482 (10th Cir. 1995).
Doc. 8, ¶ IIk.
Upon review of the Motion and the proposed Stipulated Protective Order, the Court finds that the parties have shown good cause to keep the referenced discovery materials confidential between the parties. Notwithstanding the agreement of the parties, however, the Court finds that the parties have failed to demonstrate good cause to file these discovery materials under seal. The "good cause" requirement for filing under seal is even more important now that the Court utilizes electronic filing. When documents or pleadings are filed under seal, they must be filed conventionally, i.e., in paper form, rather than electronically. Such paper filings impose a significant administrative burden on the Clerk's Office. Accordingly, this Court now requires that a party move for permission to file a document under seal and that the party demonstrate good cause for the sealing of that particular document. The fact that the parties have agreed to the requested provision for filing confidential materials under seal does not dispense with the requirement to show good cause.
See D. Kan. 5.4.6 ("[D]ocuments ordered to be placed under seal must be filed conventionally and not electronically. . . .").
Based on the parties' failure to demonstrate good cause for the "filing under seal" provision of their proposed protective order, the Court will deny, without prejudice, the parties' motion. The parties may file a renewed joint motion for the entry of a protective order that does not contain the objectionable blanket provision for the filing of confidential documents under seal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order (doc. 9) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.