Opinion
Case No. 01-2583-JAR, Case No. 03-2091-KHV
November 12, 2003
ORDER
The parties have submitted an "agreed" protective order for the Court's consideration. For the reasons set forth below, the proposed order is rejected and the parties are granted leave to submit a revised protective order.
Paragraph (j) of the October 7, 2003 Scheduling Order (doc. 195) sets forth the appropriate procedure for submitting a proposed protective order in this case:
Discovery in this case may be governed by a protective order. If the parties agree concerning the need for and scope and form of such a protective order, their counsel shall confer and then submit a jointly proposed protective order by October 31, 2003. Such jointly proposed protective orders shall include, in the first paragraph, 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).
The parties' proposed protective order fails to contain a "sufficiently specific recitation" of good cause. Moreover, the protective order, as currently drafted, is virtually limitless and allows the parties to designate any information as "confidential." At a minimum, the proposed order must define the characteristics of the documents and information claimed to be "confidential."
The proposed protective order also provides that any document stamped "confidential" which is attached to a motion or brief shall be filed "under seal" with the clerk's office. The court rejects this blanket approach. The Federal District Court for the District of Kansas now utilizes electronic filing and the handling of "paper" or "conventional" filings imposes a significant administrative burden on the clerk's office. Accordingly, this district has imposed limitations and requires a party to move for permission to file a document conventionally and/or under seal. D. Kan. Rules 5.4.1 and 5.4.6. To the extent a party wishes to file a pleading or document under seal, a separate motion must be filed.
The parties' proposed protective order is rejected and the parties are hereby granted leave to submit a revised, agreed protective order consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.