Combs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Christopher Combs, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-737

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

Alliance Shippers, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

The parties’ joint motion for stipulated protective order is denied without prejudice. (Doc.

No. 56). Specifically, I reject Paragraphs 11, 17, and 19 because they contain provisions I conclude

to be at odds with the Local Rules of the Northern District of Ohio, my Standing Order regarding

discovery disputes, and Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir.

2016).

First, as restated in this case’s Case Management Order, I maintain the following Standing

Order regarding discovery disputes:

No motion relating to discovery may be filed without leave of court. If counsel

cannot resolve a discovery dispute despite their good faith efforts, they should email

me a joint letter (Helmick_Chambers@ohnd.uscourts.gov) summarizing the nature

of the dispute and their efforts to resolve it. After I review the joint submission, my

chambers will contact counsel regarding next steps toward resolution.

(Doc. No. 45 at 2). This accords with this District’s Local Rule 37.1, which generally disfavors

additional legal memoranda and sets forth informal procedures for handling discovery disputes. I

consider a dispute over a confidentiality designation to be a “discovery dispute.” Accordingly, I

reject Paragraph 11 and 17of the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order, which conflicts with

my Standing Order and Local Rule 37.1. (See Doc. No. 56 at 6 and 7).

Second, Shane Group, Inc. distinguishes protective orders from orders to seal and stands for

the position that the court should not hastily protect documents from public disclosure. 825 F.3d at

305-06. Through Paragraph 19 of their proposed stipulated protective order, (see Doc. No. 56 at 7-

8), the parties may inadvertently muddy the waters between protection during the discovery and

adjudication stages and set forth procedures I conclude to be at odds with the “‘strong presumption

in favor of openness’ as to court records.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Brown &

Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). For example, in the last

section of Paragraph 19, the parties propose a procedure that would effectively turn the

presumption of openness on its head by inviting parties and “potentially-prejudiced” nonparties

alike to object to public disclosure of not just documents that are designated as confidential under

the protective order, but of any document counsel subjectively “believes may warrant sealing.”1 (Id.

at 8). The parties offer no authority to suggest such a prophylactic measure to public disclosure and

related motion practice is appropriate. Additionally, because counsel must adhere to the Local Rules

of this District, my Standing Orders, and Sixth Circuit precedent including Shane Group, Inc., I

conclude the remainder of Paragraph 19 serves little purpose and may cause unnecessary confusion.

Accordingly, I reject Paragraph 19.

For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ motion to endorse their stipulated protective order is

denied without prejudice.

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick

United States District Judge

1 Paragraph 7 provides a separate procedure to be followed by the parties themselves when one

party seeks to file materials another party has designated as confidential under the protective order.

(Doc. No. 56 at 5).