Lincoln Memorial University v. Michael Center

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia
DecidedOctober 28, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-00048
StatusUnknown

This text of Lincoln Memorial University v. Michael Center (Lincoln Memorial University v. Michael Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lincoln Memorial University v. Michael Center, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Opinion

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

LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action File No.: ) v. ) 3:25-CV-00048-CDL ) MICHAEL CENTER, ) ) Judge Clay D. Land Defendant. ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER The above-captioned case is presently before the Court on the Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order for Confidential Information (the “Motion”) of Plaintiff Lincoln Memorial University (“LMU” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant Michael Center (“Dr. Center” or “Defendant”) (collectively, Plaintiff and Defendant are referred to herein as the “Parties”; individually each may be referred to as a “Party”) wherein the Parties request that the Court enter an order restricting the use and disclosure of confidential information produced in this matter. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 provides, in pertinent part, “[a] party or person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order” and “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.R. 26(c); Farnsworth v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547-48 (11th Cir. 1985). Having reviewed the Motion and the record, the Court finds good cause for, and the Parties stipulate to, the requested protective order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Purposes and Limitations. Disclosure and discovery activity in the above-captioned matter (this “Action”) is likely to involve production of

confidential, proprietary, or private information (including information regarding the intellectual property of the Parties and/or third parties) for which special protection from public disclosure and use for any purpose other than this Action is warranted. The Parties therefore stipulate to and request entry of this Stipulated

Protective Order (the “Order”) by the Court. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited information or items that are

entitled under the applicable legal principles to treatment as confidential. This Order shall not govern the use of any publicly available information. The Parties further acknowledge that this Order does not allow any Party to file anything under seal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and the Court’s General Orders regarding sealed

documents, and other applicable rules set forth the procedures that must be followed and reflect the standards and procedures that will be applied when a Party seeks leave to file material under seal. The Parties agree that all information produced or

disclosed in the Action shall be used solely for the prosecution or defense (including any appeal therefrom) of the Action, and shall not be used for any other purpose unless specifically stated herein or otherwise agreed to between the Parties.

2. Application to Parties and Third Parties. This Order governs the production and exchange, in connection with this Action, of information, documents, and other discovery materials by or between the Parties to this Action, as well as any

non-parties to this Action who are subpoenaed or otherwise produce information during this Action (a “Third Party” or “Third Parties”). If discovery is sought in this Action from Third Parties, and the discovery would require a Third Party to disclose or produce Protected Information (as defined below), that Third Party may gain the

protections of this Order through a written agreement by that Third Party to be bound by this Order and produce information, documents, and other discovery materials pursuant to its terms. Under such an agreement by a Third Party, the Parties hereto

will be bound by this Order with respect to all Protected Information produced by that Third Party. In the event that additional persons or entities become parties to this Action, such parties shall not have access to Protected Information produced by or obtained from any Producing Party (as defined below) until the newly joined

parties or their counsel confirm in writing to all other parties that they have read this Order and agree to be bound by its terms and/or otherwise agree with the Producing Party as to protections for the Protected Information.

3. Non-Disclosure. This Order shall not, in any manner, be disclosed to a jury in any litigation between or among the Parties unless the Parties agree to such disclosure or the relevant court issues an order to disclose this Order. Further, this

Order shall not be used, in any manner or form, directly or indirectly, as evidence in any trial or any hearing, or referred to in any trial or any hearing, save and except a hearing that involves issues related to the enforcement of any provision of this Order,

or unless the Parties agree to use this Order or the relevant court issues an order allowing the use of this Order. 4. Protected Information. a. Confidential Information. A Party or Third Party producing and/or

providing documents, communications, discovery responses (including interrogatory responses, responses to requests for admission, etc.), deposition testimony, photographs, videotapes, data and other materials, or portions thereof, in

response to discovery (including, but not limited to, a response to a subpoena) in this Action (the “Producing Party”) may designate such material as “Confidential” if the Producing Party reasonably and in good faith believes such material contains confidential commercial, personal, financial, or proprietary information, or other

confidential information not already part of the public domain. Upon designation of information as “Confidential Information,” such information shall be subject to the provisions of this Order, and any Party receiving such Confidential Information (a

“Receiving Party”) shall be responsible for safeguarding such all Confidential Information in accordance with the requirements of this Order. b. Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information. A Producing Party may designate

as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information” any documents, communications, discovery responses (including interrogatory responses, responses to requests for admission, etc.), deposition testimony, photographs, videotapes, data and other materials, or

portions thereof, it produces in discovery in this Action if the Producing Party reasonably and in good faith believes they contain: i. sensitive technical information, including current research, development and manufacturing information, patent prosecution information;

ii. sensitive business information, including highly sensitive financial or marketing information and the identity of suppliers, distributors, and potential or actual customers;

iii. competitive technical information, including technical analyses or comparisons of competitor’s products; iv. competitive business information, including non-public financial or marketing analyses or comparisons of competitor’s products and

strategic product planning; v. trade secrets of the Producing Party, whether or not that information falls into subsections (i) through (iv) above; or

vi. any other information, the disclosure of which to non-qualified persons subject to this Order the Producing Party reasonably and in good faith believes would likely cause harm to its interests.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lincoln Memorial University v. Michael Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lincoln-memorial-university-v-michael-center-gamd-2025.