Lang v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., No. 1:2015cv02436 - Document 37 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 5/27/16 denying the defendant's motion for a protective order for the reasons set forth in this order. (Related Doc. 31 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO -----------------------------------------------------JOHN LANG, Plaintiff, v. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. 15-CV-2436 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 31] -----------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Defendant First Advantage Background Services Corp. (“First Advantage”) moves for a second protective order. Plaintiff Lang opposes. On April 14, 2016, this Court denied the parties’ stipulated protective order as broad, unspecific, and against the public’s interest in access to court documents.1 With its reply in support of the second protective order, First Advantage admits that the second protective order deals only with discovery between the parties.2 The protective order does not deal with documents meant for this Court’s public docket. Furthermore, Defendant does not make a specific showing that private disclosures would endanger any of its trade secrets. Parties are free to make any outside agreements they want on the scope of discovery. However, this Court does not give official approval of such outside agreements. A protective order dealing only with private discovery is not a proper use of the Court’s authority.3 1 Doc. 30. Doc. 36 at 1. 3 See Salling v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-2160, 2010 WL 446073, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2010). 2 Case No. 15-cv-2436 Gwin, J. This Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for a protective order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 27, 2015 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
