Sinthasomphone v. Capital One

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin·Decided February 1, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-00863·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SOMSACK SINTHASOMPHONE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 21-CV-863-JPS v.

ALLY FINANCIAL INC, BARCLAYS ORDER BANK OF DELAWARE, CAPITAL ONE, CARMAX AUTO FINANCE, CITIBANK, and AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION,

Defendants.

On January 20, 2022, Defendants in this case filed a joint motion for the entry of a protective order, along with a proposed order. (Docket #55, #55-1). Defendants request that the Court enter such an order because discovery in this case, which involves allegation of violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, will likely entail the disclosure of consumer financial information, as well as trade secrets or other nonpublic confidential information including financial, personal, or business information. (Docket #55 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.

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

Sinthasomphone v. Capital One, (E.D. Wis. 2022).

Sinthasomphone v. Capital One (Sinthasomphone v. Capital One) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related