Doe v. Bonnell
1:25-cv-20757
| S.D. Fla. | Sep 2, 2025Background:
- Plaintiff (Jane Doe) filed a motion for a protective order governing discovery after a dispute over competing draft protective orders exchanged during a May 2025 meet-and-confer.
- Parties exchanged a detailed draft (Plaintiff May 14; Defendant redline May 16); Plaintiff then submitted a materially different, shorter proposed order on May 23.
- Central dispute concerned whether legal names and identifying information of non-party witnesses (and Plaintiff) should be protected, and the overall scope and procedures of confidentiality designations.
- Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres granted the motion in part and entered a revised protective order on Sept. 2, 2025, adopting a more specific, negotiated framework while limiting protections for non-party identities.
- The Order defines “CONFIDENTIAL” categories (e.g., intimate images, Jane Doe’s legal name, non-party witness names only if the Court allows sealing of their testimony, medical/psych records, private sexual information), sets marking/production rules, limits disclosure to a defined list of recipients, prescribes a 30-day challenge procedure, addresses inadvertent privilege production, sealing procedures, and survivorship of the Order.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause exists for a Rule 26(c) protective order | Protection required to prevent harassment, embarrassment, retaliation to Plaintiff and non-parties | Public’s common-law right of access and need for narrow, precise protections | Court found good cause and granted a limited protective order |
| Whether legal names/PII of non-party witnesses should be protected | Broader protection for Plaintiff’s and non-party identities to prevent harm | Opposed broad protection for non-party names absent a court finding or sealing order | Court limited protection: Plaintiff’s legal name protected; non-party names protected only if Court has allowed their testimony to be filed under seal |
| Level of specificity and procedures for designation/challenge | Supports protective measures but submitted a shorter order; willing to protect sensitive categories | Advocated for the more detailed, negotiated draft (marking, Bates, challenge timeline) | Court adopted more detailed, negotiated provisions: Bates stamping, marking, limited designations, 30-day challenge, burden on designator |
| Filing under seal and public-access balance | Confidential materials used in court should remain protected and sealed when necessary | Emphasizes presumption of public access and judicial oversight for sealing | Order requires motions to seal for court filings and follows Rule 26/common-law balancing principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (recognizes common-law public right of access to judicial records)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (distinguishes access to discovery materials from materials filed with pretrial motions resolving merits)
- Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992) (once a matter is before a court it also becomes the public’s case)
- In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352 (11th Cir. 1987) (four-factor good-cause test for Rule 26(c) protective orders)
- Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985) (balancing-of-interests approach to Rule 26(c))
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1986) (movant bears burden of persuasion for protective orders)