Opinion
Case No. 3:05-cv-889-J-25MCR.
February 10, 2006
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties' Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order (Doc. 19) filed February 9, 2006. The proposed Protective Order fails to provide the Court with the necessary good cause required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Court may enter a protective order upon motion of a party "for good cause shown." Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26. A protective order cannot be entered based solely on the consent of the parties; rather, the Court is required to make findings justifying such an order. See In re Alexander Grant Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 355 (11th Cir. 1987).
The parties are free to consent to a confidentiality agreement without the Court's involvement. However, the Court may agree to enter a protective order only when it is necessary to expedite the flow of discovery material, promote prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality, and facilitate the preservation of material arguably worthy of protection. See McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk County, 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989); In re Alexander Grant Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d at 356.
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The parties' request for the Court to enter the Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order (Doc. 19) is DENIED without prejudice.
2. If the parties continue to believe they need Court involvement for their protective order, they may file an appropriate motion showing the required good cause along with an accompanying stipulated protective order for the Court's consideration.
DONE AND ORDERED.