IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

BLUE ROCK INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al : 

: Case No. 3:17-cv-00409

Plaintiffs, : 

: Judge Walter Rice

v. : 

: Magistrate Judge Sharon Ovington

THE CITY OF XENIA, OHIO, : 

: 

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : 

: 

BADGER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al : 

: 

Third-Party Defendants : 

: 

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Plaintiff Blue Rock Investments, LLC and Defendant the City of Xenia, Ohio 

(individually, a “Party,” together, the “Parties”) jointly request that the Court enter this Order, 

and their agreement that the following limitations and restrictions should apply to documents 

and information produced for inspection and copying during the course of the above-captioned 

matter (the “Action”), the Court hereby ORDERS that: 

1. Scope. This Protective Order (hereinafter “Protective Order” or “Order”) shall

apply to all documents or other information produced in the course of discovery in this Action 

that the producing person or entity (the “Producing Entity”) has designated as 

“CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” (either a “Confidentiality Designation” or 

collectively the “Confidentiality Designations”) pursuant to this Order, including but not limited 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 1838
2

to, all initial disclosures, all responses to discovery requests, all deposition testimony and 

exhibits, and all materials (including documents or testimony) produced by non-parties in 

response to subpoenas issued in connection with this matter, including all copies, excerpts, and 

summaries thereof (collectively the “Confidential Information”).

2. Purpose. The purpose of this Protective Order is to protect against the

unnecessary disclosure of Confidential Information.

3. Disclosure Defined. As used herein, “disclosure” or “to disclose” means to

divulge, reveal, describe, summarize, paraphrase, quote, transmit, or otherwise communicate 

Confidential Information, and the restrictions contained herein regarding disclosure of 

Confidential Information also apply with equal force to any copies, excerpts, analyses, or 

summaries of such materials or the information contained therein, as well as to any pleadings, 

briefs, exhibits, transcripts or other documents which may be prepared in connection with this 

litigation which contain or refer to the Confidential Information or information contained therein. 

4. Designating Material

a. Designating Material As Confidential: Any Party, or any third-party

subpoenaed by one of the Parties, may designate as Confidential and subject to this 

Protective Order any documents, testimony, written responses, or other materials 

produced in this case if they contain information that the Producing Entity asserts in good 

faith is protected from disclosure by statute or common law, including, but not limited to, 

confidential personal information, medical or psychiatric information, trade secrets, 

personnel records, or such other sensitive commercial information that is not publicly 

available. Information that is publicly available may not be designated as Confidential. 

The designation of materials as Confidential pursuant to the terms of this Protective 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 1839
3

Order does not mean that the document or other material has any status or protection by 

statute or otherwise except to the extent and for the purposes of this Order.

b. Designating Material As Attorneys’ Eyes Only. Any Party, or any thirdparty subpoenaed by one of the Parties, may designate as Attorneys’ Eyes Only and subject 

to this Protective Order any materials or information that meet the test set forth in 

Paragraph 4.a, but as to which the Producing Entity also asserts in good faith that the 

information is so competitively sensitive that the receipt of the information by parties to 

the litigation could result in competitive harm to the Producing Entity. 

5. Form and Timing Of Designation.

a. Documents And Written Materials. The Producing Entity shall

designate any document or other written materials as confidential pursuant to this Order 

by marking each page of the material with a stamp setting forth the Confidentiality 

Designation, if practical to do so. The person or entity designating the material shall place 

the stamp, to the extent possible, in such a manner that it will not interfere with the 

legibility of the document. Materials shall be so-designated prior to, or at the time of, 

their production or disclosure.

b. Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”): If a production response

includes ESI, the Producing Entity shall make an effort to include within the electronic 

files themselves the Confidentiality Designation to the extent practicable. If that is not 

practicable, then the Producing Entity shall designate in a transmittal letter or email to the 

Party to whom the materials are produced (the “Receiving Party”) using a reasonable 

identifier (e.g., the Bates range) any portions of the ESI that should be treated as 

“CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” and any portions of the 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 1840
4

ESI that should be treated as “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SUBJECT TO 

PROTECTIVE ORDER.”

c. Deposition Testimony. Deposition testimony will be deemed confidential

only if designated as such when the deposition is taken or within sixty (60) days after 

receipt of the deposition transcript. Such designation must indicate which Confidentiality 

Designation applies, and must be specific as to the portions of the transcript and/or any 

exhibits to which that Confidentiality Designation applies, except that any exhibit that 

was marked with a Confidentiality Designation at the time of production, and which still 

bears that mark at the time of its use in a deposition, shall be presumed to fall within the 

provisions of this Order without further designation. 

6. Limitation Of Use.

a. General Protections. All information that has received a Confidentiality

Designation, including all information derived therefrom, shall be used by any Receiving 

Party solely for purposes of prosecuting or defending this Action. A Receiving Party shall 

not use or disclose the Confidential Information for any other purpose, including but not 

limited to any business, commercial, or competitive purpose. Except as set forth in this 

Order, a Receiving Party shall not disclose Confidential Information to any third-party. 

This Order shall not prevent the Producing Entity from using or disclosing information it 

has designated as Confidential Information, and that belongs to the Producing Entity, for 

any purpose that the Producing Entity deems appropriate, except that the Producing 

Entity’s voluntary disclosure of Confidential Information outside the scope of this Action 

may impact the protection that this Order would otherwise provide with regard to such 

information, once disclosed.

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 1841
5

b. Persons To Whom Information Marked “Confidential” May Be

Disclosed. Use of any information, documents, or portions of documents marked 

“CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” including all information 

derived therefrom, shall be restricted solely to the following persons who agree to be 

boundby the terms of this Protective Order, unless additional persons are stipulated by 

counsel or authorized by the Court: 

1. outside counsel of record for the Parties, and the administrative staff of

outside counsel's firms;

2. in-house counsel for the Parties, and the administrative staff for each inhouse counsel;

3. any Party to this action who is an individual;

4. as to any Party to this action who is not an individual, every employee,

director, officer, or manager of that Party, but only to the extent necessary

to further the interest of the Parties in this litigation;

5. independent consultants or expert witnesses (including partners, associates

and employees of the firm which employs such consultant or expert)

retained by a Party or its attorneys for purposes of this litigation, but only

to the extent necessary to further the interest of the Parties in this litigation,

and only after such persons have completed the certification attached

hereto as Attachment A, Acknowledgment of Understanding and

Agreement to be Bound;

6. the Court and its personnel, including, but not limited to, stenographic

reporters regularly employed by the Court and stenographic reporters not

regularly employed by the Court who are engaged by the Court or the

parties during the litigation of this action;

7. the authors and the original recipients of the documents;

8. any court reporter or videographer reporting a deposition;

9. employees of copy services, microfilming or database services, trial

support firms, and/or translators who are engaged by the parties during the

litigation of this action;

10. interviewees, potential witnesses, deponents, hearing or trial witnesses, and

any other person, where counsel for a Party to this action in good faith

determines the individual should be provided access to such information in

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 1842
6

order for counsel to more effectively prosecute or defend this action (as long 

as the disclosure occurs in the presence of counsel, and copies, duplicates, 

images, or the like are not removed or retained by any interviewee, potential 

witness, deponent, or hearing or trial witness), provided, however, that in all 

such cases the individual to whom disclosure is to be made has been 

informed that the information contained in the disclosed document(s) is 

confidential and protected by Court Order, that the individual understands 

that he/she is prohibited from disclosing any information contained in the 

document(s) to anyone; or 

11. any other person agreed to in writing by the parties.

Prior to being shown any documents produced by another Party marked “CONFIDENTIAL – 

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” any person listed under paragraph 6(b)(3), 6(b)(4), or 

6(b)(11) shall be advised that the confidential information is being disclosed pursuant to and 

subject to the terms of this Protective Order. 

c. Persons To Whom Information Marked “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” May

Be Disclosed. Use of any information, documents, or portions of documents marked 

“ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” including all 

information derived therefrom, shall be restricted solely to the following persons who 

agree to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order, unless additional persons are 

stipulated by counsel or authorized by the Court:

1. outside counsel of record for the Parties, and the administrative staff of

outside counsel's firms;

2. one designated representative from in-house counsel for the Parties;

3. independent consultants or expert witnesses (including partners, associates

and employees of the firm which employs such consultant or expert)

retained by a Party or its attorneys for purposes of this litigation, but only

to the extent necessary to further the interest of the parties in this litigation,

and only after such persons have completed the certification attached

hereto as Attachment A, Acknowledgment of Understanding and

Agreement to be Bound;

4. the Court and its personnel, including, but not limited to, stenographic

reporters regularly employed by the Court and stenographic reporters not

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 1843
7

regularly employed by the Court who are engaged by the Court or the 

parties during the litigation of this action; 

5. the authors and the original recipients of the documents;

6. any court reporter or videographer reporting a deposition;

7. employees of copy services, microfilming or database services, trial

support firms, and/or translators who are engaged by the parties during the

litigation of this action;

8. any other person agreed to in writing by the parties.

Prior to being shown any documents produced by another Party marked “ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” any person listed under paragraph 6(c)(8) 

shall be advised that the confidential information is being disclosed pursuant to and subject to the 

terms of this Protective Order. 

7. Inadvertent Production. Inadvertent production of any document or information

with a Confidentiality Designation shall be governed by Fed. R. Evid. 502. Pursuant to subsections 

(d) and (e) of that Rule, the parties agree to, and the Court orders, protection of Protected

Information against claims of waiver (including as against third parties and in other Federal and 

State proceedings) in the event such information is produced during the course of the Litigation, 

whether pursuant to a Court order, a parties’ discovery request, or informal production, as follows:

a. the production of documents or electronically stored information (“ESI”)

(including, without limitation, metadata) subject to a legally recognized claim of

privilege or other protection from production or other disclosure (collectively,

“Protected Information”), including without limitation the attorney-client

privilege and work-product doctrine, shall in no way constitute the voluntary

disclosure of such Protected Information;

b. the production of Protected Information shall not result in the waiver of any

privilege or protection associated with such Protected Information as to the

receiving Party, or any third-parties, and shall not result in any waiver of

protection, including subject matter waiver, of any kind;

c. if any document or ESI (including, without limitation, metadata) received by a Party

is on its face clearly subject to a legally recognizable privilege, immunity, or other

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 1844
8

right not to produce such information, the Receiving Party will promptly notify the 

Producing Entity in writing that it has discovered Protected Information, identify the 

Protected Information by Bates Number range, and return or sequester such 

Protected Information until the Producing Entity confirms whether it does indeed 

assert any privilege protecting this information. Once the Producing Entity asserts 

privilege over such Protected Information (as described in Subparagraph (e) 

below), the Receiving Party will return, sequester, or destroy all copies of such 

Protected Information, along with any notes, abstracts or compilations of the 

content thereof, within ten (10) business days of notice from the Producing Entity; 

d. upon the request of the Producing Entity, the Receiving Party will promptly

disclose the names of any individuals who have read or have had access to the

Protected Information;

e. if the Producing Entity intends to assert a claim of privilege or other protection

over Protected Information identified by the Receiving Party, the Producing Entity

will, within ten (10) business days of receiving the Receiving Party’s written

notification, inform the Receiving Party of such intention in writing and shall

provide the Receiving Party with a log for such Protected Information that is

consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, setting

forth the basis for the claim of privilege, immunity or basis for non-disclosure, and

in the event, if any portion of the Protected Information does not contain privileged

or protected information, the Producing Entity shall also provide to the Receiving

Party a redacted copy of the Protected Information that omits the information that

the Producing Entity believes is subject to a claim of privilege, immunity or other

protection;

f. if, during the course of the litigation, a Party determines it has produced Protected

Information, the Producing Entity may notify the Receiving Party of such

production in writing. The Producing Entity’s written notice must identify the

Protected Information by Bates Number range, the privilege or protection

claimed, and the basis for the assertion of the privilege and shall provide the

Receiving Party with a log for such Protected Information that is consistent with

the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, setting forth the basis

for the claim of privilege, immunity or basis for non-disclosure, and in the event

any portion of the Protected Information does not contain privileged or protected

information, the Producing Entity shall also provide to the Receiving Party a

redacted copy of the Protected Information that omits the information that the

Producing Entity believes is subject to a claim of privilege, immunity or other

protection. The Producing Entity must also demand the return of the Protected

Information. After receiving such written notification, the Receiving Party must,

within ten (10) business days of receiving the written notification, return,

sequester, or destroy the specified Protected Information and any copies, along

with any notes, abstracts or compilations of the content thereof;

g. a Receiving Party’s return, sequestration, or destruction of such Protected

Information as provided in the Subparagraphs above will not act as a waiver of the

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 1845
9

Receiving Party’s right to move for the production of the returned, sequestered, or 

destroyed Protected Information on grounds that the Protected Information is not 

in fact subject to a viable claim of privilege or other protection. However, the 

Receiving Party is prohibited and estopped from arguing that the Producing Entity’s 

production of the Protected Information in this matter acts as a waiver of applicable 

privileges or protections, that the disclosure of the Protected Information by the 

Producing Entity was not inadvertent, that the Producing Entity did not take 

reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure of the Protected Information, or that the 

Producing Entity did not take reasonable steps to rectify such disclosure; and 

h. nothing contained herein is intended to or shall limit a Producing Entity’s right to

conduct a review of documents or ESI (including, without limitation, metadata),

for relevance, responsiveness, and/or the segregation of privileged and/or

protected information before such information is produced to the Receiving Party;

i. prior to production to another Party, all copies, electronic images, duplicates,

extracts, summaries, or descriptions (collectively “copies”) of documents marked

with a Confidentiality Designation under this Order, or in any individual portion of

such a document, shall be affixed with the same Confidentiality Designation if it

does not already appear on the copy. All such copies shall thereafter be entitled to

the protection of this Order. The term “copies” shall not include indices, electronic

databases, or lists of documents provided these indices, electronic databases, or

lists do not contain substantial portions or images of the text of confidential

documents or otherwise disclose the substance of the confidential information

contained in those documents.

8. Filing Materials Containing Information With A Confidentiality

Designation. In the event a Party seeks to file with the Court any confidential information 

subject to protection under this Order, that Party must take appropriate action to ensure that the 

document receives proper protection from public disclosure, including: (a) filing a redacted 

document with the consent of the Party who designated the document as confidential; (b) where 

appropriate (e.g., in relation to discovery and evidentiary motions), submitting the document 

solely for in camera review; or (c) when the preceding measures are inadequate, seeking 

permission to file the document under seal by filing a motion for leave to file under seal.

Any motion to file a document subject to this Order under seal must meet the Sixth Circuit’s 

standard set forth in Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th 

Cir. 2016). The burden of demonstrating the need for and appropriateness of a sealing order is borne 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 1846
10

by the moving Party, and requires the moving Party to analyze in detail, document by document, 

the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations. Regardless of whether the parties 

agree, it remains the Court’s independent obligation to determine whether a seal is appropriate 

for any given document or portion thereof. Any proposed sealing, even when compelling reasons 

exist, must be narrowly tailored to serve the compelling reasons. 

When a Party to this Order seeks to file documents which it believes may warrant sealing, 

but is not the Party who may be prejudiced by the document or documents becoming part of the 

public record, the filing Party shall provide the potentially-prejudiced Party or Parties, or any 

potentially-prejudiced third-party or parties, with written notification of its intent to file such 

documents at least (14) fourteen days before doing so. After being provided such notice, the 

potentially harmed Party or Parties will then have (7) seven days to file with the Court a motion 

for sealing. The Court will rule on the motion as promptly as possible. 

9. Attorneys Allowed To Provide Advice. Nothing in this Order shall bar or

otherwise restrict any attorney for any Party from rendering advice to his or her client with respect 

to this case or from doing anything necessary to prosecute or defend this case and furthering the 

interests of his or her client, except for the disclosure of the Confidential Information as 

proscribed in this Order.

10. Excluding Others From Access. Whenever information bearing a Confidentiality

Designation pursuant to this Protective Order is to be discussed at a deposition, the person or 

entity that designated the information may exclude from the room any person, other than persons 

designated in Paragraph 6 of this Order, as appropriate, for that portion of the deposition.

11. No Voluntary Disclosure To Other Entities. The parties or anyone acting on

their behalf may not voluntarily disclose any Confidential Information to any state or federal law 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 1847
11

enforcement or regulatory agency, or any employee thereof, except in this litigation as set forth in 

Paragraph 6 of this Order or as otherwise commanded by law or provided in this Order. Nothing 

in this Order shall prevent a Party from providing information in its possession in response to a 

valid order or subpoena from a law enforcement or regulatory agency requiring the production of 

such information, except that, prior to such production, the Party producing the information shall 

provide as much advance notice as possible to the person or entity that designated the material as 

confidential to facilitate that Party’s efforts to preserve the confidentiality of the material, if 

warranted. 

12. Disputes As To Designations. Each Party has the right to dispute the

Confidentiality Designation asserted by any other Party or subpoenaed person or entity in 

accordance with this Protective Order. If a Party believes that any documents or materials have 

been inappropriately designated by another Party or subpoenaed party, that Party shall confer with 

counsel for the person or entity that designated the documents or materials. As part of that 

conferral, the designating person or entity must assess whether redaction is a viable alternative to 

complete non-disclosure. If any Party challenges the Confidentiality Designation of any document 

or information, the burden to properly maintain the designation shall, at all times, remain with the 

person or entity that made the designation to show that said document or information should 

remain protected pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 26(c). In the event of disagreement, then the 

designating person or entity shall file a motion pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 26(c). A Party who 

disagrees with the designation must nevertheless abide by that designation until the matter is 

resolved by agreement of the parties or by order of the Court.

13. Information Security Protections. Any person in possession of Confidential

Information received from another person or entity in connection with this Action shall maintain 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 1848
12

an information security program that includes reasonable administrative, technical, and physical 

safeguards designed to protect the security and confidentiality of such Confidential Information, 

protect against any reasonably anticipated threats or hazards to the security of such Confidential 

Information, and protect against unauthorized access to or use of such Confidential Information. 

If a Receiving Party discovers a breach of security, including any actual or suspected unauthorized 

access, to Confidential Information subject to this Order, they shall: (1) notify the person or entity 

who designated the materials under the terms of this Order of such breach; (2) investigate and take 

reasonable efforts to remediate the effects of the breach; and (3) provide sufficient information 

about the breach that the Producing Entity can reasonably ascertain the size and scope of the 

breach. The Receiving Party agrees to cooperate with the Producing Entity or law enforcement in 

investigating any such security incident. In any event, the Receiving Party shall promptly take all 

necessary and appropriate corrective action to terminate the unauthorized access. 

14. All Trials Open To Public. All trials, and certain pretrial proceedings and

hearings, are open to the public (collectively a “Public Hearing” or “Public Hearings”). Absent 

further order of the Court, there will be no restrictions on any Party’s ability to the use during a 

Public Hearing any document or information that has marked with a Confidentiality Designation or 

documents or information derived therefrom that would disclose such confidential information. 

However, if a Party intends to present at a Public Hearing any document or information that has 

been so designated, the Party intending to present such document or information shall provide 

advance notice to the person or entity that made the Confidentiality Designation at least (5) five 

days before the Public Hearing by identifying the documents or information at issue as specifically 

as possible (i.e., by Bates Number, page range, deposition transcript line, etc.) without divulging 

the actual documents or information. Any person may then seek appropriate relief from the Court 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 1849
13

regarding restrictions on the use of such documents or information at trial, or sealing of the 

courtroom, if appropriate. 

15. No Waiver Of Right To Object. This Order does not limit the right of any Party

to object to the scope of discovery in the above-captioned action.

16. No Determination Of Admissibility. This Order does not constitute a

determination of the admissibility or evidentiary foundation for the documents or a waiver of any 

Party’s objections thereto.

17. No Admissions. Designation by either Party of information or documents under

the terms of this Order, or failure to so designate, will not constitute an admission that 

information or documents are or are not confidential or trade secrets. Neither Party may 

introduce into evidence in any proceeding between the parties, other than a motion to determine 

whether the Protective Order covers the information or documents in dispute, the fact that the 

other Party designated or failed to designate information or documents under this Order.

18. No Prior Judicial Determination. This Order is based on the representations and

agreements of the parties and is entered for the purpose of facilitating discovery in this action. 

Nothing in this Order shall be construed or presented as a judicial determination that any 

documents or information as to which counsel or the parties made a Confidentiality Designation 

is in fact subject to protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or 

otherwise until such time as the Court may rule on a specific document or issue.

19. Order Subject To Modification. This Order shall be subject to modification by

the Court on its own motion or on motion of a Party or any other person with standing 

concerning the subject matter. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 1850
14

20. Parties May Consent To Disclosure. Nothing shall prevent disclosure beyond

the terms of this Order if all parties consent to such disclosure, or if the Court, after notice to all 

affected parties, permits such disclosure. Specifically, if and to the extent any Party wishes to 

disclose any Confidential Information beyond the terms of this Order, that Party shall provide all 

other parties with reasonable notice in writing of its request to so disclose the materials. If the 

parties cannot resolve their disagreement with respect to the disclosure of any Confidential 

Information, then a Party may petition the Court for a determination of these issues. In addition, 

any interested member of the public may also challenge the designation of any material as 

confidential, pursuant to the terms of this paragraph.

21. Return Of Materials Upon Termination Of Litigation. Upon the written request

and expense of the Producing Entity, within 30 days after the entry of a final judgment no longer 

subject to appeal on the merits of this case, or the execution of any agreement between the parties 

to resolve amicably and settle this case, the parties and any person authorized by this Protective 

Order to receive confidential information shall return to the Producing Entity, or destroy, all 

information and documents subject to this Protective Order, unless the specific document or 

information has been offered into evidence or filed without restriction as to disclosure. The Party 

requesting the return of materials shall pay the reasonable costs of responding to its request. The 

Party returning or destroying the documents or other information shall certify that it has not 

maintained any copies of confidential information, except as permitted by this Order.

22. Counsel Allowed To Retain Copy Of Filings. Nothing in this Protective Order

shall prevent outside counsel for a Party from maintaining in its files a copy of any filings in the 

Action, including any such filings that incorporate or attach Confidential Information. Moreover, 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 1851
15

an attorney may use his or her work product in subsequent litigation provided that such use does 

not disclose any Confidential Information.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

Sharon L. Ovington

United States Magistrate Judge 

AGREED TO: 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/Joseph R. Miller

Joseph R. Miller (0068463) 

Christopher L. Ingram (0086325) 

Timothy J. Cole (0084117) 

VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP

52 East Gay Street 

Columbus, OH 43215 

Telephone: (614) 464-6400 

Facsimile: (614) 719-4742 

jrmiller@vorys.com 

clingram@vorys.com 

tjcole@vorys.com

Attorneys for City of Xenia 

/s/Dawn M. Frick (via email 8/14/2020) 

Jeffrey C. Turner (0063154) 

Dawn M. Frick (0069068) 

Christopher T. Herman (0076894) 

SURDYK, DOWD & TURNER, CO., L.P.A. 

8163 Old Yankee Street, Suite C 

Dayton, OH 45458 

Telephone: (937) 222-2333 

Facsimile: (937) 222-1970 

jturner@sdtlawyers.com 

dfrick@sdtlawyers.com 

cherman@sdtlawyers.com 

August 17, 2020 s/Sharon L. Ovington

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 1852
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

BLUE ROCK INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al : 

: Case No. 3:17-cv-00409

Plaintiffs, : 

: Judge Walter Rice

v. : 

: Magistrate Judge Sharon Ovington

THE CITY OF XENIA, OHIO, : 

: 

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : 

: 

BADGER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al : 

: 

Third-Party Defendants : 

: 

FORM PROTECTIVE ORDER 

ATTACHMENT A 

The undersigned hereby acknowledges that [he/she] has read the Protective Order dated 

[INSERT DATE OF OPERATIVE PROTECTIVE ORDER] in the above-captioned action and 

attached hereto, understands the terms thereof, and agrees to be bound by its terms. The 

undersigned submits to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Ohio in matters relating to the Protective Order and understands that the terms of the 

Protective Order obligate [him/her] to use documents designated “CONFIDENTIAL – 

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SUBJECT TO 

PROTECTIVE ORDER” in accordance with the Order, solely for the purpose of the abovecaptioned action, and not to disclose any such documents or information derived directly 

therefrom to any other person, firm, or concern. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 1853
2 

The undersigned acknowledges that violation of the Protective Order may result in 

penalties for contempt of court. 

Name: 

Job Title: 

Employer: 

Business Address: 

Date: 

Signature 

Case: 3:17-cv-00409-WHR-SLO Doc #: 127 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 1854