Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:03-cv-07960_de151> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-07960_de151 RegisterActionDate "2005-01-25" @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-07960_de151 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Judge Amy J. St. Eve : Motion 69 is denied.Defendant Oceanic Bank and Trust's motion to uphold confidential designations (R. 69-1) is denied. The documents submitted in connection with ZCM's response to Oceanic's motion to dismiss that the Court preliminarily ordered sealed on May 27, 2004, (R. 66-1) are hereby ordered unsealed and part of the public record. Oceanic has moved to Court to uphold its confidentiality designation regarding certain categories of documents. On January 31, 2002, Judge Lindberg entered a Protective Order in a related case, ZCM v. Allamian, et al., 01 C 6250 (R. 109-1). Under the terms of the Protective Order, the party seeking to uphold a confidentiality designation may file a motion with the court requesting such relief if it cannot resolve the issue with the party challenging the designation. Here, ZCM filed certain documents under seal in response to Oceanic's motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although it does not clearly articulate this argument, it appears that Oceanic is asking the Court to both uphold its confidentiality designations and allow the documents to remain under seal, and to uphold its confidentiality designation of certain categories of documents in order to limit the parties' use of such information to this litigation. Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure permits a court to issue a protective order "for good cause shown," including to protect a party from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). As the Seventh Circuit has made clear, although pretrial discovery typically takes place in private, "the public at large pays for the courts and therefore has an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding." Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944-45 (7th Cir. 1999). A court must make a determination of good cause in order to seal any part of the record in a case. "The judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process and is duty-bound therefore to review any request to seal the record (or part of it)." Id. at 945. The Court does not need to make a good cause determination on a document-by-document basis. Id. at 946. In December 2001 and January and February 2002, Oceanic designated certain documents and deposition testimony as confidential pursuant to the protective order in the 2001 case. On May 24, 2004, ZCM requested that Oceanic withdraw its confidential designation as to certain documents. Oceanic agreed to withdraw its confidential designation as to certain of these categories, but asserts that documents regarding personal financial information about those investing in M.J. Select, or the administration of M.J. Select, should remain confidential. Oceanic argues that such information is confidential and falls within the terms of the Protective Order. It further states that this information falls within the Bahamian privacy statutes. In support of its motion, Oceanic has made conclusory statements that such documentation should remain under seal, without providing any analysis or specific argument as to why good cause exists to keep these documents from the public file. Although Oceanic claims that the Bahamian privacy statutes prevent it from disclosing such information, Oceanic merely made this conclusory statement and cited the statute without providing the Court with any analysis as to why such documents are covered under the Bahamian statutes or citing any authority to support is position. See Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002) ("a litigant must do more than just identify a kind of information and demand secrecy" (citation omitted). Oceanic has failed to justify its claim of secrecy. Accordingly, the documents submitted in connection with ZCM's response that the Court preliminarily ordered sealed on May 27, 2004 shall be unsealed. As to any future filings under seal, the Court will address them when presented to the Court. Furthermore, regarding Oceanic's request to maintain this information "confidential" under the Protective Order for discovery purposes, Oceanic has again failed to explain how a confidentiality designation is essential to avoid "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Therefore, its motion to maintain the confidentiality of these documents is denied without prejudice. (tmh, ) (Entered: 01/25/2005)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-07960_de151 AdministrativeID "95" @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-07960_de151 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-07960_de151 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:03-cv-07960_de105 @default.