Amanda Watzka, et al. v. The Board of Education of Oconto Falls Public School District

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

AMANDA WATZKA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 26-CV-392

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OCONTO FALLS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order or protective order as to John Batchelor. Batchelor is acquainted with plaintiff Amanda Watzka However, he is not a party. “A district court may not enjoin non-parties who are neither acting in concert with the enjoined party nor are in the capacity of agents, employees, officers, etc. of the enjoined party.” United States v. Kirschenbaum, 156 F.3d 784, 794 (7th Cir. 1998); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Blockowicz v. Williams, 630 F.3d 563, 567 (7th Cir. 2010). Batchelor is not acting in concert with a party. Again, his only relationship to any party is with Watzka. Yet he is not acting in concert with Watzka. Indeed, it is Watzka (along with all her co-plaintiffs) who seeks to enjoin Batchelor’ s conduct. Consequently, the court lacks any authority to issue an injunction as to Batchelor. There are certain limited circumstances where a court’s protective order may apply to non-parties. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), 45(d). The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate either that the court has the authority to grant a protective order

under the circumstances or that good cause supports the issuance of a protective order, cf. Walsh v. Alight Sols. LLC, 44 F.4th 716, 727 (7th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order or protective order (ECF Nos. 48, 51) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to seal the document filed as ECF No. 51 (ECF No. 47) is granted.

Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 31st day of July, 2026.

s/ Byron B. Conway BYRON B. CONWAY U.S. District Judge