16 Cited authorities

  1. Marrese v. American Academy of Ortho. Surgeons

    470 U.S. 373 (1985)   Cited 2,008 times
    Holding that the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, "directs a federal court to refer to the preclusion law of the State in which judgment was rendered"
  2. Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises

    498 U.S. 533 (1991)   Cited 902 times
    Holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 was not a fee-shifting provision because Rule 11 sanctions were not “tied to the outcome of litigation,” instead turning on whether a “specific filing” was well founded, and shifted the costs of a “discrete” portion of the litigation rather than the litigation as a whole
  3. Ball Memorial Hosp. v. Mutual Hosp. Ins

    784 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir. 1986)   Cited 196 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding information related to bids and evaluating bids was "unquestionably sensitive trade secrets" and warranted protection from unnecessary disclosure, as counterparties "could use it to advantage in the next round of negotiations"
  4. Matter of Krynicki

    983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding litigants must obey even invalid outstanding orders of confidentiality
  5. Marrese v. Am. Academy Ortho. Surgeons

    726 F.2d 1150 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 94 times
    Noting that there are different ways for district courts to protect non-privileged documents
  6. Arvco Container Corporation v. Weyerhaeuser Company

    Case No. 1:08-cv-548 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2009)   Cited 19 times
    In Arvco, Magistrate Judge Scoville did not hold that pricing information was not entitled to the heightened protections contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), but rather held that the defendant in that case had failed to make any showing that its pricing information was proprietary and therefore worthy of such protections.
  7. Autotech Tech. Ltd. v. Automationdirect.com, Inc.

    237 F.R.D. 405 (N.D. Ill. 2006)   Cited 18 times

    Cary S. Fleischer, David Seth Argentar, Sanjay Shivpuri, Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., Chicago, IL, David G. Susler, David G. Susler, Carol Stream, IL, for Plaintiff. Robert Eliot Shapiro, Wendi E. Sloane, Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum, Perlman & Nagelberg, Alan R. Lipton, Barry Francis Mac Entee, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL, James A. Trigg, Susan A. Cahoon, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JEFFREY COLE, United States Magistrate Judge. BACKGROUND

  8. Merit Industries, Inc. v. Feuer

    201 F.R.D. 382 (E.D. Pa. 2001)   Cited 18 times

    Employer brought action against former employee alleging civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, misrepresentation, and breach of contract. After employer attempted to classify discovery documents as " highly confidential," pursuant to District Court's discovery order, former employee moved to change designation of documents to " confidential." The District Court, Joyner, J., held that: (1) employer could not show that protective order limiting review of documents

  9. Standard Process, Inc. v. Total Health Disc., Inc.

    559 F. Supp. 2d 932 (E.D. Wis. 2008)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding that good cause existed to seal documents discussing confidential information
  10. American Floral Services, Inc. v. Florists Transworld Delivery Ass'n

    107 F.R.D. 258 (N.D. Ill. 1985)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that "the identity of witnesses having knowledge of the relevant facts is discoverable information"
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,719 times   657 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 35,964 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
  13. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,210 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
  14. Section 765 ILCS 1065/6

    765 ILCS 1065/6

    In an action under this Act, a court shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include granting protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding in camera hearings, sealing the records of the action, and ordering any person involved in the litigation not to disclose an alleged trade secret without prior court approval. 765 ILCS 1065/6 P.A. 85-366. Amended by P.A. 102-0558,§ 820, eff. 8/20/2021.