HANSON v. WEAVER POPCORN COMPANY, INC., 1:14-cv-209. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20150317b08
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER SUSAN COLLINS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order filed by Defendant on March 13, 2015. (Docket # 15.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. But 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
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER SUSAN COLLINS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order filed by Defendant on March 13, 2015. (Docket # 15.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. But 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 ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
SUSAN COLLINS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order filed by Defendant on March 13, 2015. (Docket # 15.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. But 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 tendered order.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES approval of the proposed stipulated protective order submitted by the parties. (Docket # 15.) The parties may, however, submit a revised proposed protective order consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c)(1) and Seventh Circuit case law.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
