Defalico v. Aldridge Pite Haan LLP
2:17-cv-00568
E.D. Wis.Jun 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lee DeFalico and defendant Aldridge Pite Haan, LLP jointly moved for a protective order to keep certain discovery materials confidential.
- The parties sought to protect sensitive commercial and financial materials and putative class member identities.
- The court acknowledged the general presumption of public access to pretrial discovery and that protective orders are an exception requiring good cause and narrow tailoring.
- The court found good cause for protection but required modifications: prefer redaction to wholesale sealing where possible and permit public challenges to confidentiality designations.
- The court emphasized that its own decisions will not be entered under seal and reiterated standard procedures for designation, use, return/destruction, and challenges to confidential material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective order should issue to guard confidential discovery | Jointly requested protective order to permit free exchange of sensitive materials | Jointly requested protective order (same position) | Court granted protective order finding good cause |
| Scope: blanket sealing vs. redaction | Parties proposed broad sealing of confidential documents | Same as plaintiff; sought comprehensive protection | Court required narrower tailoring; redaction preferred where only portions are confidential |
| Procedures for designating and timing confidentiality labels | Parties proposed standard labeling (CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY) at production | Same | Court adopted labeling rules, timing (prior to or contemporaneous with production), and 30‑day window for deposition designations |
| Public access and challenges to designations | Parties agreed to allow court to oversee confidentiality | Same | Court mandated public notice: members of public may move to challenge designations; designating party bears burden; court may award fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594 (7th Cir.) (protective orders are exceptions to public-access presumption)
- Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir.) (parties must show good cause for protective orders)
- Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854 (7th Cir.) (agreement to protective order does not eliminate need to show good cause)
- Hicklin Eng’r, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346 (7th Cir.) (litigation should be public to maximum extent consistent with protecting secrets)
- County Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730 (7th Cir.) (broad protective orders permissible if parties act in good faith and public can challenge sealing)