Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wright v. Ambassador Personnel, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Kansas

May 6, 2019

STEVEN E. WRIGHT, Plaintiff,

          HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC MATTHEW K. HOLCOMB, KS Bar No. 23140 SCOTT R. SCHILLINGS, KS Bar No. 16150 Attorneys for Defendants Ambassador Personnel, Inc. and Flowers Specialty FoodService Sales, LLC

          MOORE CLARKE DUVALL & RODGERS, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants Ambassador Personnel, Inc. and Flowers Specialty FoodService Sales, LLC C. JASON WILLCOX, Ga. Bar No. 730322 (Pro Hac Vice)

          G. GRAY LAW, LLC GERALD GRAY, II, Bar No. 26749 Attorney for Plaintiff Steven E. Wright



         The parties agree that during the course of discovery it may be necessary to disclose certain confidential information relating to the subject matter of this action. They agree that certain categories of such information should be treated as confidential, protected from disclosure outside this litigation, and used only for purposes of prosecuting or defending this action and any appeals. The parties jointly request entry of this proposed Protective Order to limit the disclosure, dissemination, and use of certain identified categories of confidential information.

         The parties assert as good cause in support of their request that protection of the identified categories of confidential information below that such information in documents likely to be produced contain or reflect proprietary business information and sensitive personal information such as medical records, financial statements and records, tax returns, financial data, customer data, business data, corporate policies and procedures, training materials, videos, photographs, and personnel files, including that of individuals not party to this suit, that may be relevant to this case. If such information was made public or used by the parties for purposes outside the prosecution and defense of this litigation, the business interests of Defendant Flowers Specialty FoodService Sales, LLC (“FSFS”) and Defendant Ambassador Personnel, Inc. (“Ambassador”) would be subject to a significant risk of substantial harm. Furthermore, the public release of Plaintiff Steven E. Wright's (“Plaintiff”) and non-parties' sensitive personal information or use by the parties for non-litigation purposes could also harm their interests in privacy. The necessity for protection of this sensitive information warrants limiting public disclosure and use of this information by the parties for purposes outside this litigation.

         For good cause shown under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), the court hereby enters the following Protective Order:

         1. Scope.

         Any documents and materials produced in the course of discovery of this case, including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests, all deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly there from (hereinafter collectively “documents”), are subject to this Order insofar as they contain or reflect Confidential Information as set forth below. As there is a presumption in favor of open and public judicial proceedings in the federal courts, this Order will be strictly construed in favor of public disclosure and open proceedings wherever possible.

         2. Definition of Confidential Information.

         As used in this Order, “Confidential Information” is defined as information that the producing party designates in good faith has been previously maintained in a confidential manner before this litigation was commenced and that should be and remain protected from disclosure and use outside the litigation because its disclosure and use is restricted by statute or could potentially cause harm to the commercial, privacy or reputational interests of disclosing party or nonparties. For purposes of this Order, the parties will limit their designation of “Confidential Information” to the following categories of information or documents:

• medical records,
• unemployment records,
• personnel files,
• tax returns,
• financial statements and records,
• proprietary business records, including but not limited to, insurance documents, contracts, policies and procedures, training materials, videos, photographs and customer agreements.

         3. Form and Timing of Designation.

         The producing party may designate documents as containing Confidential Information and therefore subject to protection under this Order by: 1) marking or placing the words “CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” (hereinafter “the marking”) on the document and on all copies in a manner that will not interfere with the legibility of the document or 2) specifying in writing at the time said documents are filed or produced which documents are to be treated as “CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” by reference to Bates numbers or other identifying numbers or designations which have been placed on the documents.

         As used in this Order, “copies” includes electronic images, duplicates, extracts, summaries or descriptions that contain the Confidential Information. The marking will be applied prior to or at the time of the documents are produced or disclosed. Applying the marking to a document does not mean that the document has any status or protection by statute or otherwise except to the extent and for the purposes of this Order. Copies that are made of any designated documents must also bear the marking, except that indices, electronic databases, or lists of documents that do not contain substantial portions or images of the text of marked documents and do not otherwise disclose the substance of the Confidential Information are not required to be marked. By marking a designated document as confidential, the designating attorney thereby certifies that the document contains Confidential Information as defined in this Order.

         4. Inadvertent Failure to Designate.

         Inadvertent failure to designate any document or material as containing Confidential Information will not constitute a waiver of an otherwise valid claim of confidentiality pursuant to this Order. The parties agree that any inadvertently produced privileged documents or data shall be returned to the party who inadvertently produced such documents or data, and such production shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege. The production of documents or other tangible things pursuant to a request for production by a party herein shall not be deemed a waiver of any right by the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.