Comsys Inc v. City of Kenosha Wisconsin
2:16-cv-00655
E.D. Wis.Jan 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Comsys, Inc. and Kathryn McAuliffe moved by stipulation for a protective order governing discovery in a civil suit against the City of Kenosha and various municipal defendants.
- Parties sought protection for nonpublic business records, medical records, and municipal employment records containing personal information.
- The parties requested broad confidentiality designations and sealing of materials produced in discovery.
- The court acknowledged Rule 26(c) allows protection for trade secrets and confidential commercial information but emphasized the presumption of public access to pretrial proceedings.
- The court found good cause for a protective order but required it be narrowly tailored: favor redaction over blanket sealing and preserve public challenge rights to confidentiality designations.
- The court adopted the parties’ proposed order with modifications: limiting full sealing, requiring redaction when appropriate, procedures for filing sealed and redacted versions, and permitting public challenges; it also stated it will not seal its own decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective order is warranted under Rule 26(c) | Discovery will include nonpublic financial, medical, and personnel records needing protection | Municipal defendants agreed the information is sensitive and supported a protective order | Court: Good cause shown; protective order granted |
| Whether a broad/blanket protective order is permissible | Parties sought broad designation of confidentiality for produced materials | Court cautioned against blanket sealing; public access should be maximized | Court: Broad order allowed only with limits—must act in good faith and allow public challenges; prefer redaction to full sealing |
| Procedure for filing confidential materials with the court | Parties proposed sealing protected materials when filed | Public and court interests require access; challenges must be allowed | Court: Require redacted public filings plus motion to seal and sealed unredacted filings; public may move to challenge |
| Whether court decisions can be filed under seal | Not specifically argued by parties | Court emphasized transparency of judicial decisionmaking | Court: Will not enter decisions under seal |
Key Cases Cited
- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594 (7th Cir. 1979) (recognizes public nature of pretrial discovery and that protective orders are exceptions)
- Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999) (protective orders require good cause and limits on secrecy)
- Hicklin Eng’r, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2006) (litigation should be public to maximum extent consistent with protecting secrets)
- Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 1994) (parties must still show good cause for protective orders even when stipulated)
- Cty. Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2006) (broad protective orders may be permissible when parties act in good faith and public can challenge sealing)