BATASKI BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:18-cv-1725-AT-JKL United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division Signed June 25, 2020 Counsel Bataski Bailey, Atlanta, GA, Pro Se. Alex Michael Barfield, Stanton Law, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Michael Adam Merar, Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., Plano, TX, for Defendant. Larkins III, John K., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This is a case arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. The case is presently before the Court on Defendant TransUnion LLC's (“Trans Union”) Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 98] and Plaintiff Bataski Bailey's (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Stay [Doc. 101]. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion for protective order and DENIES the motion to stay as moot. I. Background and Procedural Posture In October 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action alleging violations of the FCRA and Georgia law. As noted by this Court previously, the dispute has been “mired in discovery problems occasioned largely by Mr. Bailey's obstreperousness.” [Doc. 112 at 2.] Relevant to the present order, on February 19, 2020, the Court found that due to the apparent intractability of the discovery issues, discovery should proceed in discrete phases—first with written discovery, and then with depositions—and directed the parties to file motions to compel regarding any outstanding written discovery. [Doc. 82.] The parties each filed motions to compel, and on April 24, 2020, the Court issued a detailed order denying Plaintiff's motion and granting Trans Union's motion. [Doc. 95.] In that order, the Court also directed Trans Union to file a motion for protective order governing the production and use of confidential information in discovery within fourteen days. [Id. at 49-50.] On May 8, 2020, TransUnion timely filed its motion for protective order. [Doc. 98.] Plaintiff has not responded to the motion for protective order and the time to do so has passed. LR 7.1(B), NDGa. Meanwhile, on May 20, 2020, Mr. Bailey appealed the undersigned's order to the extent it denied his motion to compel [Doc. 100], and moved to stay all discovery in this case pending resolution of the appeal [Doc. 101]. On June 25, 2020, the District Judge affirmed the undersigned's order on the motion to compel. [Doc. 114.] II. Trans Union's Motion for Protective Order In its motion for protective order, Trans Union seeks to protect trade secret or otherwise confidential information that may be produced in discovery. [Doc. 98-1 at 1.] Trans Union submits that such an order is necessary to limit inquiry into its commercial information that is not relevant to the present dispute; to shield trade secrets, other confidential research, development, commercial information, and privileged information from use outside the purposes of this litigation; and to ensure that such information is returned or destroyed once the litigation has completed. [Id. at 1–2.] It supports the motion with the Declaration of Daniel O. Halvorsen, its Managing Counsel [Doc. 98-2], who identifies the types of policies and procedures that Trans Union considers confidential, the steps it takes to protect the information from dissemination, and the potential harm if the information is shared with competitors. As noted above, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion and the time to do so has passed. LR 7.1B, NDGa. Accordingly, the Court deems Defendant's motion for a protective order unopposed, and grants it on that basis. See id. *2 But even considering the motion on its merits, the Court readily concludes that Trans Union has demonstrated good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 for entry of a confidentiality protective order. As an initial matter, the proposed protective order is substantively identical to a protective order this Court recently entered in Bataski Bailey v. Nationwide Credit Inc. & TransUnion LLC, No. 1:20-CV-173-AT-JKL, over Mr. Bailey's objections. See Bailey v. Nationwide Credit Inc., Dkt. Nos. 45, 46 (N.D. Ga. June 19, 2020). The order is also similar to a protective order that U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller entered in an earlier FCRA case that Mr. Bailey brought against Trans Union and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. See Bailey v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., No. 1:14-CV-797-MHC-JCF, 2016 WL 11540574, at *2–4 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 11, 2016). Given the similarity of issues and scope of discovery in those cases to the case at bar, the Court sees no basis to take a different approach here. In addition, as discussed above, Trans Union has provided ample, uncontroverted evidence to demonstrate good cause for entry of a protective order. [See Doc. 98-2.] Accordingly, the Court finds that Trans Union has demonstrated good cause to support entry of a protective order governing confidential information produced during discovery in this case. Thus, the Court GRANTS Trans Union's motion for protective order. III. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay As noted, on June 25, 2020, the district judge affirmed this Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion to compel. [Doc. 114.] Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery is DENIED as moot. IV. CONCLUSION In sum, Trans Union's motion for protective order [Doc. 98] is GRANTED. The Court will enter separately a slightly modified version of the proposed protective order that Trans Union submitted along with its motion. It is further ORDERED that Trans Union produce all remaining responsive documents that it is withholding subject to entry of a confidentiality protective order within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the protective order. The Court reminds Mr. Bailey that he must abide by the order and that a violation of the order may result in sanctions or a finding of contempt of court. Because Trans Union's document production will be completed within fourteen days, the parties are DIRECTED to proceed with the next stage of discovery—depositions—so that discovery may be completed in a timely manner.[1] Plaintiff's motion to stay [Doc. 101] is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2020. Footnotes [1] The Court previously directed that Trans Union proceed with Mr. Bailey's deposition before Mr. Bailey may depose Trans Union. [Doc. 95 at 48-49.]