UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DARRYL D. AGLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-99

)

WESTHEIMER CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is an Agreed Motion for Entry of Amended Stipulated Protective Order,

seeking approval of a proposed Amended Stipulated General Protective Order Concerning

Confidential Information (“Proposed Order”). (Docket # 28.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(c)(1) allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. See Citizens First

Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999). Because the

Proposed Order is still lacking in at least two ways, the motion will be DENIED.

As a threshold matter, it is now clear from section IV(A)(1) that the Proposed Order

extends beyond the discovery process and contemplates the filing of documents with the Court

under seal. As such, the Proposed Order is subject to a higher level of scrutiny. See Containment

Techs. Grp., Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Health Sys. Pharmacists, No. 1:07-cv-997, 2008 WL 4545310,

at *3 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2008) (“[T]he same scrutiny is not required for protective orders made

only for discovery as for those that permit sealed filings.”). 

A protective order must extend only to “properly demarcated categor[ies] of legitimately

confidential information.” Cincinnati Insurance., 178 F.3d at 946. Although the Proposed Order

sets forth several demarcated categories of confidential information, it does not limit protection
to such categories, rendering the proposed Order overly broad. (Proposed Agreed Protective

Order § II(A)); see Cincinnati Insurance, 178 F.3d at 944 (emphasizing that the word “believed”

incorporated into the phrase “believed to contain trade secrets” is a “fudge”); Shepard v. Humke,

IP 01-1103-C-H/K, 2003 WL 1702256, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2003) (articulating that a

party’s attempt to qualify a “fudge” word by the phrase “in good faith” fails to sufficiently cure

the deficiency). 

Moreover, the Proposed Order should seek to narrowly protect any confidential material

through a method of redaction, rather than allowing documents that “contain” confidential

material to be filed under seal. (Proposed Amended Protective Order § IV(A)(1)); see Cincinnati

Insurance, 178 F.3d at 945 (stating that an order sealing documents containing confidential

information is overly broad because a document containing confidential information may also

contain material that is not confidential, in which case a party’s interest in maintaining the

confidential information would be adequately protected by redacting only portions of the

document). That is, the Proposed Order should require the public filing of a redacted version of

the document (in which only the actual confidential material is redacted) when an unredacted

version is filed under seal. 

It is important to remember that “the public at large pays for the courts and therefore has

an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding.” Cincinnati Insurance, 178 F.3d

at 945-46. Accordingly, a protective order “may not issue absent an appropriate showing of

good cause, as well as adherence to the other limitations the Seventh Circuit has emphasized

apply to such orders.” Shepard, 2003 WL 1702256, at *2. 

For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Agreed Motion for Entry of Amended

2
Stipulated Protective Order. (Docket # 28.) The parties may, however, submit a revised

protective order consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c)(1) and Seventh Circuit case law.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 17th day of March 2015. 

S/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

3