AUTO OWNERS INSUANCE COMPANY v. BRONER

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00055
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE : COMPANY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 1:25-CV-55 (LAG) : JEROME BRONER, et al., : : Defendants. : : ORDER Before the Court is the Plaintiff Auto-Owners Insurance Company’s Motion for Protective Order. (Doc. 18). Therein, Plaintiff, with the consent of Defendants, asks the Court to enter a consent protective order to protect “Plaintiff’s internal processes and procedures that are deemed by Plaintiff to be confidential and proprietary.” (Doc. 18-1 at 3). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court may enter a protective order upon finding good cause. Stipulated protective orders have become “commonplace in the federal courts” to allow the parties “to designate particular documents as confidential . . . and postpone[] the necessary ‘good cause’ required for entry of a protective order until the confidential designation is challenged.” Chicago Trib. Co. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citing In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)). Accordingly, the Court finds a protective order is warranted to protect the confidential materials of Plaintiff. For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s Consent Motion (Doc. 18) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s proposed Consent Protective Order (Doc. 18 at 4–16) is hereby ADOPTED and made the ORDER of the Court. SO ORDERED, this 6th day of August, 2025. /s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT