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 in Microsoft Word format to Judge McLaughlin’s proposed order inbox ( Proposed_Order_McLaughlin@ilnd.uscourts.gov ). The motion should not attach the proposed order but rather state that the proposed order is being submitted to Judge McLaughlin via email. For confidentiality orders, 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 to the model order. 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 .

Discovery Motion Requirements The Court believes that the parties can and should work out most discovery disputes, and thus discourages the filing of discovery motions. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motion unless the parties have complied with the meet and confer requirement under Local Rule 37.2. Any discovery motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2 by separate certificate filed with the motion and attested to by the attorney. Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes through communications and negotiations that take place in person or over the telephone. The Court believes face to face communications regarding discovery disputes are the most effective way to resolve them and requires counsel for parties to meet in person unless it is impracticable to do so. Videoconferencing satisfies this requirement. The Rule 37.2 Certificate must state that this requirement has been met or why it cannot be met with particularity. The mere exchange of correspondence will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2. Parties who fail to indicate that they have met in person to attempt to resolve their dispute risk having their motion stricken. Parties are not allowed to file a brief in response or reply of a discovery motion without leave of Court. The Court reminds the parties of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), which requires the Court to award the winning side fees and costs unless the losing party’s position was substantially justified or awarding fees and costs would be unjust. Parties are forewarned that if the parties’ inability to be reasonable and compromise results in the filing of excessive discovery motions, the Court will impose additional meet-and-confer requirements on the parties, that may include the presence of a court reporter at all meet-and-confer sessions, with the parties to equally share the cost of the court reporter.