-RBC Glenn v. Raytheon Company et al, No. 1:2010cv00164 - Document 20 (N.D. Ind. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 19 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by E*Trade Securities LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 12/27/10. (cer)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CHARLES GLENN, Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-164 OPINION and ORDER Before the Court is a stipulation by the parties seeking approval of a proposed protective order. (Docket # 19.) As the proposed order contains several defects, it will be DENIED. First, the order s definition of confidential information is overly broad and vague, seeking to protect [i]nformation . . . or tangible things that qualify for protection under standards developed under F. R. Civ. P. 26(c). (Proposed Stipulated Protective Order ยง 2.3.) Under Cincinnati Insurance, a protective order must only extend to properly demarcated categor[ies] of legitimately confidential information. Citizens First Nat l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999); see also MRS Invs. v. Meridian Sports, Inc., No. IP 99-1954-C-F/M, 2002 WL 193140, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 6, 2002) (rejecting proposed protective order because categories of protected information were overly broad and vague); Cook, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 206 F.R.D. 244, 248-49 (S.D. Ind. 2001); Andrew Corp. v. Rossi, 180 F.R.D. 338, 342 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Here, the Court is not satisfied that the parties know what information constitutes protected confidential information. See Cincinnati Insurance, 178 F.3d at 946. Also, the proposed order makes no effort to specify why the purported protected materials are confidential. See id. (stating that Rule 26(c)(7) allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown). [M]erely asserting that a disclosure of the information could harm a litigant s competitive position is insufficient; the motion must explain how. Shepard v. Humke, IP 01-1103-C-H/K, 2003 WL 1702256, at *1 (S.D. Ind. March 28, 2003) (citing Baxter Int l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir. 2002)). For material to be protected, it must give the holder an economic advantage and threaten a competitive injury business information whose release harms the holder only because the information is embarrassing or reveals weaknesses does not qualify for trade secret protection. Id. In addition, Cincinnati Insurance specifies that protective orders may only issue if the order makes explicit that either party and any interested member of the public can challenge the secreting of particular documents. Id. Here, the proposed order contains no such language with respect to an interested member of the public. Obtaining a protective order in an appropriate case need not be a[n] onerous task. But such an order may not issue absent an appropriate showing of good cause, as well as adherence to the other limitations the Seventh Circuit has emphasized apply to such orders. Shepard, 2003 WL 1702256, at *2. Of course, the parties may submit a revised protective order consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c)(7) and Seventh Circuit case law, but what has been submitted thus far is inadequate. For these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES approval of the stipulated protective order 2 submitted by the parties (Docket # 19). SO ORDERED. Enter for this 27th day of December, 2010. S/ Roger B. Cosbey Roger B. Cosbey, United States Magistrate Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
