United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
October 4, 2005.
KARISSA BRUEGGEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
RT ST. LOUIS FRANCHISE, LLC., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DONALD WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the Court on the "Stipulated Protective
Order Governing the Production of Proprietary and Confidential
Information," construed as a Motion for Protective Order, filed
by the parties on September 29, 2005 (Doc. 33). The motion is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that the Court
may enter a protective order "for good cause shown" in a number
of situations. Instead of filing a motion that indicates the good
cause that exists for the entry of a protective order, the
parties have filed, and submitted to chambers,*fn1 the
proposed protective order itself. The Seventh Circuit has
repeatedly held that it is the Court's duty to determine whether
good cause exists and that the Court must not merely rubber stamp
a protective order merely because the parties believe it is
appropriate. See Citizens First National Bank of Princeton v.
Cincinnati Insurance Company, 178 F.3d 943, 944 (7th Cir.
1999); Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, LTD.,
30 F.3d 854, 858-859 (7th Cir. 1994); American Telephone and
Telegraph Company v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596-597 (1979). In
this instance, no good cause has been shown. The Court also adds that
the second paragraph of the proposed order seeks to protect all
documents provided by the defendant in this case. Such a broad
restriction on public access to all documents in this case would
require a significant showing that these documents come within
the requirements of Rule 26(c).
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.