Gunson v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.
43 F. Supp. 3d 1396
S.D. Fla.2014Background
- This is a class action alleging a payday loan scheme violating Florida laws.
- Defendants moved for a protective order to designate discovery as confidential.
- Plaintiff does not oppose confidentiality per se but objects to non-sharing and to who bears the burden of challenging designations.
- The matter is before Magistrate Judge Valle, with related motions to stay or compel arbitration pending.
- The court applies the Eleventh Circuit four-factor good-cause test and grants the protective order in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the non-sharing provision appropriate and enforceable? | Plaintiff argues against limiting use to this action; requests sharing with related litigation. | Defendants contend non-sharing protects confidential, proprietary information. | Non-sharing provision is permissible; limits use to this litigation. |
| Who bears the burden to challenge a confidentiality designation? | Objecting party should not bear sole burden; seeks flexible challenge mechanism. | Designating party bears burden; umbrella order preserves presumptive confidentiality. | Burden remains on the designating party; challenge must be timely by objecting party. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352 (11th Cir.1987) (four-factor test for good cause and protective orders)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir.2001) (umbrella orders; presumptive protection pending challenge)
- McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk County, 876 F.2d 89 (11th Cir.1989) (protective order restricting use of confidential material)