178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999), 98-3534, Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
|Docket Nº:||98-3534, 98-3535, 98-3957|
|Citation:||178 F.3d 943|
|Opinion Judge:||Posner, Chief Judge.|
|Party Name:||Citizens First National Bank of Princeton, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee|
|Attorney:||For CITIZENS FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PRINCETON, Plaintiff - Appellee (98-3534, 98-3535, 98-3957): Barry S. Alberts, Submitted, SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE, Chicago, IL USA. For CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellant (98-3534, 98-3535M 98-3957): Victor C. Peters, HANSON & PETERS, Chicago, IL.|
|Judge Panel:||Before Posner, Chief Judge, and Bauer and Easterbrook, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||May 28, 1999|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Submitted February 23, 1999
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 96 C 3731. Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.
Remanded to the district judge for limited purpose of advising whether good cause exists for allowing appendix to be filed under seal.
In the course of the litigation from which these appeals arise, the district judge, in accordance with a stipulation by the parties, issued an order authorizing either party to designate as confidential, and thus keep out of the public record of the litigation, any document " believed to contain trade secrets or other confidential or governmental information, including information held in a fiduciary capacity." One of the parties has now asked us to permit it to file an appendix under seal. In support of this motion it submits the protective order just described that the district judge issued. That order was issued in March of 1997, however, almost two years ago, and we do not know enough about the case to be able to assess the order's current validity without the advice of the district judge, to whom, therefore, we remand the case for the limited purpose of enabling him to advise us whether in his view good cause exists for our allowing the appendix to be filed under seal. Caterpillar, Inc. v. NLRB, 138 F.3d 1105 (7th Cir. 1998) (chambers opinion), and cases cited there. See also Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 898-99 (7th Cir. 1994).
There is a deeper issue of confidentiality in this case than the currency of the protective order, and we must address it in order to make clear the judge's duty on remand. That issue is the judge's failure to make a determination, as the law requires, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37, 81 L.Ed.2d 17, 104 S.Ct. 2199 (1984); Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 858 (7th...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP