Lamb v. Select Specialty Hospital-Fort Wayne

Full title: VICKIE L. LAMB, Plaintiff, v. SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL-FORT WAYNE, INC.…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

Date published: Sep 28, 2011

CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-469 (N.D. Ind. Sep. 28, 2011)

Opinion

CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-469.

September 28, 2011

OPINION AND ORDER

ROGER COSBEY, Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is a stipulated motion by the parties seeking approval of a revised proposed protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Docket # 30.) As the proposed order is deficient, it will be DENIED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made it clear that a protective order may only issue if the order "makes explicit that either party and any interested member of the public can challenge the secreting of particular documents." Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). Language permitting an interested member of the public to challenge the secreting of particular documents is missing from the revised proposed protective order.¹

1 This term was included in the parties' first proposed protective order (Docket # 28), but apparently was dropped in the revised proposed protective order.

For this reason, the Court hereby DENIES the stipulated motion seeking approval of the revised proposed protective order submitted by the parties (Docket # 30). Of course, the parties may submit a further revised protective order consistent with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) and Seventh Circuit case law.

SO ORDERED.