MICHAEL B. NORTH, Magistrate Judge.
For the reasons stated by the Court during the course of the hearing that was held on July 9, 2014, Plaintiffs' and Defendant's competing motions for entry of a protective order (rec. docs. 33, 37) are denied. On or before July 18, 2014, the parties are to jointly submit a proposed protective order that is to be patterned after the Court's model protective order, copies of which were provided to counsel at the conclusion of the hearing.
Paragraph 5(b) of the Court's model protective order, entitled "
(Rec. doc. 55, at 3).
In brief and at oral argument, Plaintiffs' counsel described this proposed language as permitting them to share documents deemed "confidential" by Defendant with "similarly situated plaintiffs" and their select representatives, such as experts and counsel. (Rec. doc. 33-2). Counsel further suggested that this Court might exercise jurisdiction over these farflung and as-yet-unknown persons
After reviewing the parties' briefs and citation to authorities therein, including the supplemental material submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their argument, the Court is unconvinced that the proffered provision is appropriate or necessary in this case and further declines the invitation to exercise jurisdiction (purportedly, at least) over an unknown number of litigants in cases filed and un-filed throughout the United States ad infinitum.
The Fifth Circuit has held that a protective order that restricts the dissemination and use of protected materials to the litigation in which those materials are produced is not "unduly constricting." Scott v. Monsanto, 868 F.2d 786, 792 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, this Court will not approve the language proffered by Plaintiffs (or any similar language) that would permit sharing of documents subject to the protective order ultimately issued in this case with "similarly situated" claimants or their representatives.