Sinthasomphone v. Capital One

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedFebruary 1, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-00863
StatusUnknown

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

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.

Cnty. Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2006). The Court finds that Defendants have requested the protective order in this case in good faith. They report that this case will entail the disclosure of information “containing trade secrets or nonpublic confidential technical, commercial, financial, personal, or business information.” (Docket #55 at 1). Based on this, the Court is satisfied that there exists a sufficient basis for the requested protective order. Because Defendants’ proposed protective order adequately complies with the standards set forth above, the Court will enter an order based on the parties’ submission. Defendants have modeled their proposed protective order off the one set forth in the Appendix to the Court’s Local Rules, with certain additions redlined for ease of reference. The Court will adopt the proposed order, including its additions, with certain alterations. The Challenges to Confidentiality section has been modified slightly to make clear that any party or member of the public may challenge confidentiality. This aligns with the policy that litigation should occur in the public eye. Additionally, the Maintenance of Confidentiality section has been modified to clarify the circumstances under which a document should be filed as a restricted document rather than one under seal. Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Civil Local Rule 26(e): (A) DESIGNATION OF CONFIDENTIAL OR ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 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 “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” (1) One who produces information, documents, or other material may designate them as “CONFIDENTIAL” when the person in good faith believes the information or documents 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 “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 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 confidential information as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 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 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 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 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.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sinthasomphone v. Capital One, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinthasomphone-v-capital-one-wied-2022.