Sidya v. Kmache, 3:24-cv-00238

Both parties jointly requested entry of a proposed protective order to govern certain confidential materials produced in discovery.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, a party seeking a protective order must show "good cause," specify the type of documents needing protection, and certify efforts to resolve disputes outside court.
The Western District of Kentucky is generally reluctant to enter agreed protective orders, as such orders often lack the adversarial context needed to meet Rule 26’s requirements.
The parties cited the need to protect documents containing confidential and competitively sensitive business information, as well as personal or health-related data.
The court emphasized the federal policy favoring public access to judicial records and disfavors blanket protective orders based on broad, non-specific claims of confidentiality.
The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing the parties to either proceed under a private agreement or refile with more specific information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should enter the parties' agreed protective order for discovery materials	Sidya argues specific materials need court-ordered protection due to confidential business, personal, or health information	Kmache agrees certain documents should be protected by court order for confidentiality reasons	Motion denied; parties did not identify specific documents or demonstrate exceptional circumstances; court won't enter a broad order

Nix v. Sword, 11 F. App’x 498 (6th Cir. 2001) (requiring specific facts showing clear injury for good cause in protective order requests)
Grae v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 134 F.4th 927 (6th Cir. 2025) (public’s presumptive right to review judicial records and limiting protective orders to truly confidential materials)
Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (non-disclosure of judicial records permitted only for the most compelling reasons)