Coleman v. Delta Management Associates Inc, 2:21-cv-01114

Plaintiff Deborah Coleman and Defendant Delta Management Associates jointly moved for a protective order in discovery, citing likely disclosure of proprietary/financial data and identifying information of putative class members.
The parties relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Local Rule 26(e) as the basis for confidentiality protection.
The court reiterated that protective orders are an exception to the presumption of public discovery and may issue only for good cause and when narrowly tailored.
The court found the parties’ joint request made in good faith and that the proposed order met applicable standards, but it made two modifications: (1) clarify the difference between “restricted” and “sealed” filings, and (2) expressly allow parties and members of the public to challenge confidentiality designations by motion.
The order defines two designations—"CONFIDENTIAL" and "ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY"—sets timing rules (including 30 days to designate deposition transcript portions), procedures for inadvertent production, lists permitted recipients for each designation, and prescribes filing, sealing, and post‑litigation return/destruction procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a protective order is warranted (good cause and narrow tailoring)	Discovery will involve proprietary, financial, and identifying class information necessitating protection	Agreed; jointly sought order to protect sensitive materials	Court found good cause and entered a narrowly tailored protective order
Definitions and timing for CONFIDENTIAL vs ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY designations	Producing party may mark materials CONFIDENTIAL or AEO when in good faith they are nonpublic/sensitive	Same	Court approved both categories, defined their scope, and set timing rules (including 30‑day deposition designation window)
Permitted disclosures and scope of use	Limit use to litigation; disclose only to counsel, necessary employees, court reporters, experts, witnesses, and persons already lawfully possessing the info	Sought AEO for materials needing heightened protection	Court adopted recipient lists; AEO is more restrictive than CONFIDENTIAL
Sealing/restriction and challenges to confidentiality designations	Parties requested procedures to restrict/seal filings and protect confidential material	Parties sought ability to file unredacted under seal and redacted public versions	Court required motions to seal/restrict with redacted public copy and unredacted filings under seal, allowed parties and public to challenge designations, placed burden on designating party and permitted fee awards

Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594 (7th Cir. 1979) (protective orders are an exception to public discovery)
Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999) (protective orders require good cause and narrow tailoring)
Hicklin Eng’r, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2006) (litigation should be public to the maximum extent consistent with protecting trade secrets)
Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 1994) (even stipulated protective orders require a showing of good cause)
Cnty. Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2006) (broad protective orders permissible when parties act in good faith and public may challenge sealing)