(Pacific Standard) A United States Magistrate Judge nailed it in American Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 1:20-cv-00302-WCL-SLC, 2021 WL 118826 (N.D. Ind. January 12, 2021). Specifically, she nailed a proposed stipulated protective order, sending it back to the lawyers for corrections.
First, the proposed protective order submitted by the lawyers in this insurance coverage case "fails to set forth narrow, demarcated categories of legitimately confidential information. Instead it defines 'Confidential Information' with vague categories such as 'confidential business and commercial information, contracts, and other highly confidential proprietary information....' (ECF 18 § C). Generic terms such as 'confidential,' 'proprietary,' and the like are far afield from a narrowly demarcated category." American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2021 WL 118826, at *1.
Next, the proposed stipulation to secrecy did not present legally sufficient reasons for a protective order from a Federal Court sitting in the Seventh Circuit. The lawyers were required instead to describe the information to be sequestered from public view, and then to "'show that substantial privacy interests outweigh the presumption of public access to discovery material.'" American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2021 WL 118826, at *1.
Further, the stipulated order submitted in this case proposed that the Court retain jurisdiction over the parties after the litigation ended. "The Court, however, is unwilling to enter a protective order that suggests it retain jurisdiction of any kind after resolution of the case." American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2021 WL 118826, at *2.
"Finally," the U.S. Magistrate Judge ruled, that the proposed protective order in this case failed because it was not "'explicit that either party and any interested member of the public can challenge the secreting of particular documents.' [Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v.] Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d [943,] at 946 [(7th Cir. 1999).]. The instant proposed order, however, does not contain this language. '[T]he public at large pays for the courts and therefore has an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding.' Id. at 945.” American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2021 WL 118826, at *2.
There are one or two more points that the U.S. Magistrate Judge made in her concise, cogent opinion in this case. What has been summarized here is enough to show that she nailed it.
The name of the United States Magistrate Judge? Susan Collins.
Remember that name!
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments