BELL
v.
CROSS

M.D. Fla. | 2020-10-15
District Court, M.D. Florida (2020) Positive Treatment

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.


Holding

The court granted in part the parties' renewed joint motion for a confidentiality order, approving the proposed order except for paragraph 8.


Facts & Procedural History

The parties filed a renewed joint motion for a confidentiality order. Previous motions were denied for not being narrowly tailored. The revised propos…

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.


Opinion of the Court

BEFORE THE COURT is the Parties’ Renewed Joint Motion for Confidentiality Order (Dkt. 165). Upon consideration, the motion is GRANTED in part. The previous motions for entry of a protective order were denied without prejudice because, among other things, the proposed orders were not narrowly tailored. (Dkts. 161, 163). The revised proposed protective order addresses most of the shortcomings of the previous proposed orders, except for paragraph 8, which purports to address the use of confidential information at a hearing or at trial. (Dkt. 165-1 ¶ 8). Local Rule 1.09 sets forth the requirements for filing a document under seal. The right to file a document under seal does not automatically follow a confidentiality designation. See Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 297 F. 3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002). A party that intends to present or anticipates that another party may present confidential information at a hearing or trial, and wishes that the information be filed under seal, must therefore

make the required showing under Local Rule 1.09(a), notwithstanding that the information was designated confidential during discovery. Accordingly, the motion (Dkt. 165) is GRANTED in part, and the proposed Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order (Dkt. 165-1) is APPROVED, with the exception of paragraph 8.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2020.

/s/ James D. Whittemore

JAMES D. WHITTEMORE

United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of Record


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw