Gavin Farley v. City of Park Ridge, et al CASE NUMBER 07 C 6063 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois Filed October 08, 2008 Counsel Judith Anne Gleason, Lukasz Radoslaw Cholodecki, Margaret Elizabeth Bennett, Nancy Richter, The Gleason Law Group, PC, Chicago, IL, for Gavin Farley. William W. Kurnik, Misha Desai, Knight, Hoppe, Kurnik & Knight LLC, Rosemont, IL, for City of Park Ridge. William Charles Barasha, Jay S. Judge, Michael E. Kujawa, Judge, James & Kujawa, LLC, Park Ridge, IL, for Ray Wolff. William Charles Barasha, Michael E. Kujawa, Jay S. Judge, Judge, James & Kujawa, Ltd., Park Ridge, IL, for Jason Leavitt, Robert Kampwirth, Thomas Swoboda. Nolan, Nan R., United States District Judge STATEMENT *1 The parties seek entry of a protective order. The proposed protective order covers the personnel file of any employee of the Park Ridge Police Department, including Defendants Officer Ray Wolff, Officer Jason Leavitt, Lieutenant Robert Kampwirth, and Deputy Chief Thomas Swoboda. Under the terms of the proposed protective order, the personnel files may be disclosed only to Qualified Persons who are defined in the protective order. The proposed protective order also provides that the personnel files are to be used solely for the purpose of preparing and presenting evidence in this litigation. Parties to a lawsuit may agree amongst themselves that information they exchange during discovery will be kept confidential before it is filed with the court. See Baxter International, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating “[s]ecrecy is fine at the discovery stage, before the material enters the judicial record”); In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., et. al., 198 F.R.D. 654, 657 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (noting “[a]ccess to discovery materials when those materials have been presented to the court is one issue and quite another issue when the parties are exchanging the materials amongst themselves.”). The Seventh Circuit has recognized that “[a]bsent a protective order, parties to a law suit may disseminate materials obtained during discovery as they see fit.” Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, Limited, 30 F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 1994). “In other words, if they do not see fit to disseminate discovery information, the parties need not do so.” In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 198 F.R.D. at 657. Here, the parties have agreed to limit disclosure of the personnel files of Park Ridge Police Department employees to certain persons involved in the litigation. A confidentiality agreement amongst the parties regarding the personnel files will address the parties' confidentiality concerns at this stage of the proceedings and there is no need for court approval or intervention regarding such an agreement. See Frupac Intern. Corp. v. M/V “CHUCABUCO”, 1994 WL 269271 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 1994). With respect to filing personnel files under seal, the Court will make a good cause determination for filing under seal if and when a party seeks to file the personnel files or portions thereof under seal. Counsel shall consult this Court's judicial home page (http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/JUDGE/NOLAN/nrnpage.htm) for specific information concerning the procedures for seeking approval to file material under seal.