govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-8_23-cv-02466-2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
KENNETH L. WARN,
Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendant,
*
V. * Civil No. 8:23-02466-?JM
*
JANAY SEARS,
Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this breach of contract and fraud dispute between two former romantic partners, Kenneth
Warn has filed a Motion to Allow Remote Deposition of JanaySears (ECF No. 46). Sears has
filed Q.pro se Motion for Protective Order of Deposition (ECF No. 47) and a Motion for Gag Order
(ECF No. 49). Sears also filed a document titled "Defendant's Contentions with the Plaintiff' (ECF
No. 48). Warn has filed counseled oppositions to both of Sears' Motions (see ECF Nos. 51, 52).
No hearing is necessary. See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the Court
will GRANT Wam's Motion to Allow Remote Deposition (ECF No. 46), DENY Sears' Motion
for Protective Order of Deposition (ECF No. 47), and DENY Sears' Motion for Gag Order (ECF
No. 49). To the extent Sears' filing titled "Defendant's Contentions with the Plaintiff (ECF No.
48) may be construed as a Motion for Protective Order, it will also be DENIED.^
' Sears' filing titled "Defendant's Contentions with the Plaintiff may be liberally construed as a Motion for Protective
Order to govern the designation and production of confidential materials. See ECF No. 48. Courts may, "for good
cause, issue an order to protect" confidential materials produced in discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The requisite
"good cause" may be shown by "specific demonstrations of fact, supported where possible by affidavits and concrete
examples, rather than broad, conclusory allegations of potential harm." Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Alan & Kristin
Hudson Farm, 278 F.R.D. 136, 140 (D. Md. 2011) (citations omitted). Beyond stating that certain testimony or
documents produced in discovery may be confidential or sensitive, Sears has not shown how or why those materials
should be kept confidential. Accordingly, to the extent Sears' filing, may be construed as a Motion for Protective
Order, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Sears remains concerned about public dissemination of
documents or testimony produced in discovery, she is encouraged to discuss her concerns with counsel for Warn, and
the parties may thereafter file a Motion seeking the entry of a Confidentiality Order. See D. Md. R. 104.13. A template
Case 8:23-cv-02466-BAH     Document 53     Filed 07/24/24     Page 1 of 6
Case 8:23-cv-02466-BAH     Document 53     Filed 07/24/24     Page 2 of 6
Case 8:23-cv-02466-BAH     Document 53     Filed 07/24/24     Page 3 of 6
Case 8:23-cv-02466-BAH     Document 53     Filed 07/24/24     Page 4 of 6
Case 8:23-cv-02466-BAH     Document 53     Filed 07/24/24     Page 5 of 6
Case 8:23-cv-02466-BAH     Document 53     Filed 07/24/24     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight