United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
May 16, 2014
UNVERFERTH MFG. CO., INC., Plaintiff,
PAR-KAN CO., Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
NUECHTERLEIN, District Judge.
Pending and ripe before the Court are two motions. First, Plaintiff,
Unverferth Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Unverferth"), filed its Motion for
Sanctions on January 14, 2014. Defendant, Par-Kan Company ("Par-Kan"), filed its
response in opposition on January 28, 2014. The motion was ripe on February 7,
2014, when Unverferth filed its reply. Second, the parties filed a Joint Motion
for Entry of Protective Order on April 24, 2014. The Court discussed both
motions with the parties at a motion hearing on May 5, 2014.
I. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, Doc. No. 46
On May 15, 2014, the undersigned received a letter from Unverferth's
counsel indicating that the parties reached agreement on all issues related to
Unverferth's motion for sanctions and that the motion is consequently moot.
Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Unverferth's motion for sanctions. [Doc. No.
II. The Parties' Joint Motion for Protective Order, Doc. No. 56
In their motion, the parties presented two almost identical versions
of a proposed protective order to the Court. They agreed as to the vast majority
of the provisions, but sought the Court's assistance in resolving their minor
dispute as to which party should have the burden to file a motion in the event
the party receiving discovery designated as confidential wished to challenge the
designation. As announced from the bench, the parties' proposed protective
orders are defective regardless of the filing burden dispute because neither one
included language explicitly allowing any party and any interested member of the
public to challenge the sealing of particular documents, as required by the
Seventh Circuit. See Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999). As such, the Court
DENIES the parties' motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Doc. No. 56].
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Unverferth's
motion for sanctions [Doc. No. 46]. Tthe Court DIRECTS the Clerk to file the
attached letter. In addition, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties'
motion for protective order [Doc. No. 56]. The parties may resubmit a motion for
protective order with a proposed protective order that comports with the
standards set forth in Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati
Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999).