Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Borom v. Menard, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

August 26, 2014

NINA BOROM, Plaintiff,
MENARD, INC., Defendant.


PAUL R. CHERRY, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order [DE 15], filed on July 1, 2014, and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [DE 18], filed on July 3, 2014. The Motion for Protective Order became fully briefed on July 10, 2014. Defendant responded to the Motion to Compel on July 17, 2014. Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief, and the deadline to do so (July 28, 2014) has passed.

I. Background

Plaintiff alleges that she was walking down a stopped escalator at one of Defendant's hardware stores when one of Defendant's employees started it, causing it to jolt forward. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that she seriously injured her right knee. She filed this lawsuit against Defendant on December 23, 2014. This case is now in the discovery stage.

Plaintiff asked for Defendant to produce copies of its surveillance videos of the alleged accident. Defendant initially objected that it did not need to turn over the video footage because it is attorney work product. After a renewed request, Defendant agreed to turn over the video footage on the condition that Plaintiff enter into a confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff's counsel initially agreed, but after conferring with Plaintiff, he withdrew that agreement, demanding that the video footage be turned over without a confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff represents that she believes this is the latest in a series of needless delays. She contends that Defendant has deliberately drawn out the discovery process, asking for numerous extensions of time and also objecting to every one of Plaintiff's written discovery requests.

Defendant responds that the delays are simply a consequence of the complexity of getting documents from a large corporation with its own in-house lawyers. It also represents that it objected to every discovery request because it wanted to preserve its objections. According to Defendant, the reason it wants a protective order regarding the videos is that the video footage discloses the location of the store's cameras, and thus blind spots. If this information were to fall into less-than-honest hands, it could be used to further fraudlent lawsuits or shoplifting.

Defendant filed this Motion for Protective Order, seeking to maintain the confidentiality of the video footage. Plaintiff, in turn, filed her Motion to Compel, which seeks an order compelling production of the video footage without a protective order. The Court considers each motion in turn.

II. Protective Order

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are entitled to obtain discovery regarding "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information is defined broadly and need not be admissible at trial, as long as it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Id.

Nevertheless, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) provides that courts may issue protective orders limiting discovery for good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)(1) "essentially operates to balance the public's interest in open proceedings against an individual's private interest in avoiding annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense....'" Felling v. Knight, 211 F.R.D. 552, 554 (S.D. Ind. 2003). Potential limits include specifying the terms of discovery, forbidding inquiry into certain matters, limiting the scope of discovery, and "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). The court has discretion in deciding when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required. Felling, 211 F.R.D. at 554. The party seeking the protective order has the burden of showing that good cause exists for it. Id. "In order to establish that information should be subject to a protective order, the party seeking protection bears the burden of establishing: (1) that the information is in fact a trade secret or confidential commercial information and (2) that there is good cause to protect the information." Culinary Foods, Inc. v. Raychem Corp., 151 F.R.D. 297, 300 (N.D. Ill. 1993).

As mentioned above, Defendant believes that sharing the video footage without any confidentiality protections would expose the store to a greater risk of theft or fraudulent lawsuits. Plaintiff raises two objections. First, that Defendant's fear is a far-fetched cover for further delay, which does not amount to a showing of good cause. Second, Plaintiff argues that no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure mandates that she sign a confidentiality agreement.

While it does appear that there may be some delay on Defendant's part, the Court thinks Defendant's concerns about theft and frivolous lawsuits is concrete enough to justify a protective order. Disclosing the footage means disclosing where all the cameras are. It would be relatively simple for an enterprising thief or fraudster to compare the footage to the actual layout of the store, discovering the blind spots. This is not to say that Plaintiff or her lawyer want to use this information to commit theft or barratry. Rather, it is simply an acknowledgement that, if not kept secret, little prevents this information from eventually finding its way into the hands of a third party that might use it wrongly.

The second objection is, as Defendant admits, true. It is also irrelevant. As just mentioned, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows parties to seek protective orders to avoid annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and undue burdens and expenses.

Defendant has established good cause, and the Court accordingly grants the Motion for Protective Order. The Court orders that the video footage and the location of the cameras not be disclosed by Plaintiff to anyone except the attorneys working on this case, the parties in this case, any consultants and experts, deponents, and deposition and court reporters. Before the video footage or camera locations may be disclosed to any such persons, they must first be advised about this Order and its protections. They also must agree, in writing, to be bound by the terms of this Order. Plaintiff may use the video footage and camera location data for this lawsuit ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.