TRIS, LLC
v.
UPTECH SALES, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
TRIS, LLC sought entry of a stipulated protective order against UPTECH SALES, LLC in a discovery dispute. The Middle District of Florida denied the joint motion without prejudice because the proposed order violated local practice by attempting to preserve court jurisdiction beyond the case's conclusion.
The court denied the parties' motion for entry of the stipulated protective order because the provision seeking to maintain court jurisdiction after final determination of the action conflicts with the established practice in the Middle District of Florida of declining to retain jurisdiction beyond a case's conclusion.
[1] A court may issue a protective order upon a showing of good cause, requiring that confidential information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.
[2] A stipulated protective order that mandates a court retain jurisdiction beyond the final determination of an action is generally disfavored and may be grounds for denial.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties jointly submitted a proposed stipulated protective order to govern disclosure of trade secrets and confidential commercial information in …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause For Protective Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order. (Doc. 47). For the reasons set forth below, the parties' motion is denied without prejudice.
The issuance of protective orders is governed generally by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). That rule provides that, upon a showing of good cause, a court may issue a protective order “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G); see also Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F. 3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
Upon careful review of the parties' stipulated protective order, the Court notes it suffers from a deficiency that undermines the parties' good cause showing. Namely, the proposed order states in paragraph 19 that "[t]his Order shall survive the final determination of this action and shall remain in full force and effect after conclusion of all proceedings in this action to provide th[e] Court with ancillary jurisdiction to enforce its terms.” (Doc. 47-1 at 11). This language runs counter to the general practice of courts in this District of declining to maintain jurisdiction of a lawsuit beyond the case's conclusion. See, e.g., Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2014 WL 1292692, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2014) (refusing to adopt a provision mandating that the court retain jurisdiction after the action's final determination so that the court could resolve disclosure disputes); Kristoff-Rampata v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 2016 WL 11431488, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2016) (same); Kerswill v. Modern Brokers of Am. LLC, 2023 WL 3847325, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2023) (same). The Court sees no reason to deviate from this practice here.
In light of the above, the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 47) is denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 15th day of March 2024.
Christopher P. Tuite HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUITE United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to: Counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Gregory v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc, 216 F.R.D. 525 (M.D. Fla. 2023)
- Kerswill v. Modern Brokers of Am., LLC, 2016 WL 11431488 (M.D. Fla. 2023)