printing Print

The site you are about to visit contain(s) information created and maintained by other public and private organizations. These links are provided for the user’s convenience.

The U.S. District Court of Northern District of Illinois does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information; nor does it control or guarantee the on-going availability, maintenance, or security of these internet sites.

Further, the inclusion of links is not intended to reflect their importance or to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered, on these outside sites, or the organizations sponsoring the sites.


Proceed


Confidentiality Agreements, Protective Orders, and Filing Material Under Seal

Protective Order Entered by the Court

If the parties require a protective order entered by the Court, they should file a motion (indicating whether it is agreed or opposed) and email a copy of their proposed protective order to the Court in Microsoft Word format, as outlined in the Court’s procedures for Submitting a Proposed Order, Agreed or Otherwise, for Electronic Entry by the Judge. The parties are directed to use the model protective order approved by the full Court and set forth in the Local Rules: Form LR 26.2 Model Confidentiality Order. Parties may deviate from the model order, but when submitting their proposed order to the Court’s e-mail address they must include both a clean version of their order and a redline version showing any changes made from the model order. Before requesting entry of a protective order in referral cases, the parties are directed to review any standing order or instructions from the District Judge regarding protective and confidentiality orders.

All materials sought to be protected from public disclosure must be described in sufficient detail to justify such protection (e.g., “trade secrets,” “personnel files”). Parties cannot and will not be given total discretion to mark whatever material they choose to be protected or Confidential, or to have all discovery treated as confidential. See Baxter Inter., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002); Citizens First National Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999).

The Court’s issuance of the protective order will constitute the determination, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), that good cause exists for the issuance of the order. However, issuance of any protective order will not be given preclusive effect as a determination of good cause for Rule 26(c) purposes if, at a future time, a party or an interested member of the public moves for relief from the limitations of the protective order. In the event of such a motion, the Court will engage in an appropriate assessment of the interest between privacy and public access to make a determination of good cause as to the challenged document(s) in light of the facts then before the Court. See Jepsen, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 859 (7th Cir. 1994).

 

Use of Medical Records in Litigation

The Court reminds counsel that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and its regulations create a procedure for obtaining authority to use medical records in litigation, including requesting a qualified protective order. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e). A “qualified protective order” means an order that: (1) prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation for which such information was requested and (2) requires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the litigation. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v). See Example of a HIPAA Protective Order.


Note: The court does not control nor can it guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this information. Neither is it intended to endorse any view expressed nor reflect its importance by inclusion in this site.
#CMPID1395