Eclipse Service Inc v. Lehner

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedOctober 19, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-00757
StatusUnknown

This text of Eclipse Service Inc v. Lehner (Eclipse Service Inc v. Lehner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eclipse Service Inc v. Lehner, (E.D. Wis. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ECLIPSE SERVICE INC.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 22-CV-757-JPS v.

SOLARCODE LLC, SOLARCODE PROTECTIVE HOLDINGS, LLC, ROGER M. LEHNER, and ROBIN L. LEHNER, ORDER Defendants.

On October 14, 2022, the parties filed a stipulated motion for the entry of a protective order, with a stipulated proposed order. ECF No. 15. The parties request that the Court enter such an order because Plaintiff served written discovery requests on Defendants that seek “confidential and sensitive information relating [to] Defendants’ medical history, medical records and financial information.” Id. at 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) allows for an order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” including “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information . . . be revealed only in a specified way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G); see also Civ. L.R. 26(e). Protective orders are an exception to the general rule that pretrial discovery must occur in the public eye. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 1979); Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945–46 (7th Cir. 1999). Litigation must be “conducted in public to the maximum extent consistent with respecting trade secrets . . . and other facts that should be held in confidence.” Hicklin Eng’r, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006). Nonetheless, the Court can enter a protective order if the parties have shown good cause and that the order is narrowly tailored to serve that cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Citizens First, 178 F.3d at 945; Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 1994) (even when parties agree to the entry of a protective order, they still must demonstrate the existence of good cause). The Court can find that even broad, blanket orders are narrowly tailored and permissible when it finds that two factors are satisfied: (1) that the parties will act in good faith in designating the portions of the record that should be subject to the protective order; and (2) that the order explicitly allows the parties to the case and other interested members of the public to challenge the sealing of documents. Cnty. Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2006). The Court finds that the parties have requested the protective order in this diversity negotiable instrument action in good faith. The parties report that this case will entail the disclosure of sensitive information about the parties. ECF No. 15 at 1. Thus, the Court is satisfied that there exists a sufficient basis for the requested protective order. Because the parties’ proposed protective order adequately complies with the standards set forth above, the Court will enter an order based on the parties’ submission. The Court makes two minor modifications to the parties’ protective order: (1) to clarify the difference between a “restricted” document and a “sealed” document, and that both are options for motions filed under General Local Rule 79(d), see infra Paragraph (C)(2), and (2) to allow both parties and interested members of the public to challenge the designation of confidentiality by motion, see infra Paragraph (D). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for a protective order, ECF No. 15, be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and Civil L.R. 26(e): (A) DESIGNATION OF CONFIDENTIAL OR AEO INFORMATION. Designation of information under this Order must be made by placing or affixing on the document or material, in a manner that will not interfere with its legibility, the words “CONFIDENTIAL” or “AEO” for material designated as “Attorneys–Eyes–Only.” (1) One who produces information, documents, or other material may designate them as “CONFIDENTIAL” when the person in good faith believes they contain trade secrets or nonpublic confidential, technical, commercial, financial, personal, or business information. (2) One who produces information, documents, or other material may designate them as “AEO” when the person in good faith believes that they contain particularly sensitive trade secrets or other nonpublic confidential, technical, commercial, financial, personal, or business information that requires protection beyond that afforded by a CONFIDENTIAL designation. (3) Except for information, documents, or other materials produced for inspection at the party’s facilities, the designation of information as CONFIDENTIAL or AEO must be made prior to, or contemporaneously with, their production or disclosure. In the event that information, documents, or other materials are produced for inspection at the party’s facilities, such information, documents, or other materials may be produced for inspection before being marked as confidential. Once specific information, documents, or other materials have been designated for copying, any information, documents, or other materials containing confidential information will then be marked confidential after copying but before delivery to the party who inspected and designated them. There will be no waiver of confidentiality by the inspection of confidential information, documents, or other materials before they are copied and marked confidential pursuant to this procedure. (4) Portions of depositions of a party’s present and former officers, directors, employees, agents, experts, and representatives will be deemed confidential only if designated as such when the deposition is taken or within thirty (30) days of receipt of the deposition transcript. (5) If a party inadvertently produces information, documents, or other material containing CONFIDENTIAL or AEO information without marking or labeling it as such, the information, documents, or other material shall not lose its protected status through such production and the Parties shall take all steps reasonably required to assure its continued confidentiality if the producing party provides written notice to the receiving party within ten (10) days of the discovery of the inadvertent production, identifying the information, document, or other material in question and of the corrected confidential designation. (B) DISCLOSURE AND USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Information, documents, or other material designated as CONFIDENTIAL or AEO under this Order must not be used or disclosed by the Parties or counsel for the Parties or any persons identified in subparagraphs (B)(1) and (2), infra, for any purposes whatsoever other than preparing for and conducting the litigation in which the information, documents, or other material were disclosed (including appeals). The Parties must not disclose information, documents, other material designated as confidential to putative class members not named as plaintiffs in putative class litigation unless and until one or more classes have been certified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eclipse Service Inc v. Lehner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eclipse-service-inc-v-lehner-wied-2022.