Filed: May 16, 2014
Latest Update: May 16, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. NUECHTERLEIN, District Judge. Pending and ripe before the Court are two motions. First, Plaintiff, Unverferth Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Unverferth"), filed its Motion for Sanctions on January 14, 2014. Defendant, Par-Kan Company ("Par-Kan"), filed its response in opposition on January 28, 2014. The motion was ripe on February 7, 2014, when Unverferth filed its reply. Second, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order on April 24, 2014. T
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. NUECHTERLEIN, District Judge. Pending and ripe before the Court are two motions. First, Plaintiff, Unverferth Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Unverferth"), filed its Motion for Sanctions on January 14, 2014. Defendant, Par-Kan Company ("Par-Kan"), filed its response in opposition on January 28, 2014. The motion was ripe on February 7, 2014, when Unverferth filed its reply. Second, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order on April 24, 2014. Th..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. NUECHTERLEIN, District Judge.
Pending and ripe before the Court are two motions. First, Plaintiff, Unverferth Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Unverferth"), filed its Motion for Sanctions on January 14, 2014. Defendant, Par-Kan Company ("Par-Kan"), filed its response in opposition on January 28, 2014. The motion was ripe on February 7, 2014, when Unverferth filed its reply. Second, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order on April 24, 2014. The Court discussed both motions with the parties at a motion hearing on May 5, 2014.
I. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, Doc. No. 46
On May 15, 2014, the undersigned received a letter from Unverferth's counsel indicating that the parties reached agreement on all issues related to Unverferth's motion for sanctions and that the motion is consequently moot. Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Unverferth's motion for sanctions. [Doc. No. 46].
II. The Parties' Joint Motion for Protective Order, Doc. No. 56
In their motion, the parties presented two almost identical versions of a proposed protective order to the Court. They agreed as to the vast majority of the provisions, but sought the Court's assistance in resolving their minor dispute as to which party should have the burden to file a motion in the event the party receiving discovery designated as confidential wished to challenge the designation. As announced from the bench, the parties' proposed protective orders are defective regardless of the filing burden dispute because neither one included language explicitly allowing any party and any interested member of the public to challenge the sealing of particular documents, as required by the Seventh Circuit. See Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999). As such, the Court DENIES the parties' motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Doc. No. 56].
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Unverferth's motion for sanctions [Doc. No. 46]. Tthe Court DIRECTS the Clerk to file the attached letter. In addition, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties' motion for protective order [Doc. No. 56]. The parties may resubmit a motion for protective order with a proposed protective order that comports with the standards set forth in Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999).
SO ORDERED.
