Gallagher v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

E.D. Wisconsin

Gallagher v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

DecidedOctober 20, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00482

StatusUnknown

This text of Gallagher v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Gallagher v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America) 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

Gallagher v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, (E.D. Wis. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ANNE GALLAGHER, KATHLEEN NICOL, SUSAN GALLAGHER- LEPAK, and MICHAEL GALLAGHER, Case No. 22-CV-482-JPS

Plaintiffs, ORDER v.

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP LLC,

Defendants.

On October 19, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion for entry of a stipulated protective order. ECF No. 37. The parties also included a copy of their proposed protective order. ECF No. 37-1. 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). 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) (holding that, even when parties agree to the entry of a protective order, they still must demonstrate the existence of good cause). The instant motion for a protective order must be denied because it is devoid of any factual basis on which the Court could find good cause. The motion does not describe the nature of the confidential or sensitive information that might be divulged, or who might be injured by the disclosure of this information. The parties merely vaguely describe the information at issue as “confidential” and/or “sensitive.” ECF No. 37 at 1. The Court would entertain a renewed motion that presents an appropriate factual predicate suggesting that good cause warrants entry of a protective order in this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for entry of a stipulated protective order, ECF No. 37, be and the same is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 20th day of October, 2022. BY THE.COURT: □ x2 ectonnast) J.R. Stadia eller U.S»District Judge

Page 2 of 2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ANNE GALLAGHER, KATHLEEN NICOL, SUSAN GALLAGHER- LEPAK, and MICHAEL GALLAGHER, Case No. 22-CV-482-JPS

Plaintiffs, ORDER v.

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP LLC,

Defendants.

On October 19, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion for entry of a stipulated protective order. ECF No. 37. The parties also included a copy of their proposed protective order. ECF No. 37-1. 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). 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) (holding that, even when parties agree to the entry of a protective order, they still must demonstrate the existence of good cause). The instant motion for a protective order must be denied because it is devoid of any factual basis on which the Court could find good cause. The motion does not describe the nature of the confidential or sensitive information that might be divulged, or who might be injured by the disclosure of this information. The parties merely vaguely describe the information at issue as “confidential” and/or “sensitive.” ECF No. 37 at 1. The Court would entertain a renewed motion that presents an appropriate factual predicate suggesting that good cause warrants entry of a protective order in this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for entry of a stipulated protective order, ECF No. 37, be and the same is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 20th day of October, 2022. BY THE.COURT: □ x2 ectonnast) J.R. Stadia eller U.S»District Judge

Page 2 of 2

American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Honorable John F. Grady, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, MCI Communications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

594 F.2d 594 (Seventh Circuit, 1979)

Citizens First National Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, Cross-Appellee

178 F.3d 943 (First Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gallagher v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallagher-v-the-prudential-insurance-company-of-america-wied-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack