Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01453-JJF Document 43 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE i
SSGT JASON A. ADKINS, USAF, : .
Plaintiff, i
v. Z Civil Action No. 04-1453-JJF
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, ;
Secretary of Defense, et al., :
MEMORANDUM ORDER l
Pending before the Court is a Motion For A Privacy Act
Protective Order And For Permission To File Four Exhibits In
Support Of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Under Seal (D.I. 27) i
filed by Defendants and a Motion To Strike Certain Exhibits Filed I
With Defendants' Motion To Dismiss For Failing To Comply With
Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(b)(6) (D.I. 38) filed by Plaintiff. In light
of the Court’s decision to allow limited discovery to proceed on
the issue of causation as it relates to standing, the Court
declines to strike the exhibits filed with Defendants' Motion To
Dismiss. §
As for Defendants' request for a Privacy Act Protective
Order and permission to file certain documents under seal, the
Court notes that Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ request to
file Exhibits 5A, 5B and SC under seal, and therefore, the
parties agree that these exhibits should be sealed and subject to
a Protective Order. In their Reply Brief to the Motion To i
Dismiss, Defendants also represent to the Court that the parties i
i
I

Case 1:04-cv-01453-JJF Document 43 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 2 of 3
{
agree that Defendants will submit only part of Exhibit 6B under U
seal, and that the parties anticipate being able to agree on the
appropriate redactions. Defendants indicate that once the {
parties agree on the appropriate redactions, they will submit a
revised exhibit 6B. Defendants also represent that “Plaintiff `
agrees that it will provide a release under the Privacy Act as to i
information concerning the plaintiff that plaintiff does not wish
to be redacted.” (D.I. 42 at 2 n.l.)
No further filings have been made in this case since k
l
Defendants’ filed their Reply brief, and therefore, it does not
appear to the Court that the revised Exhibit GB has been ,
submitted. In addition, the representations of Defendants in
their Reply Brief suggest to the Court that the parties were in
the process of resolving their disputes as to Defendants' request
for a Protective Order and request to file documents under seal, E
and therefore, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion and
require the parties to file a stipulated Protective Order to the
Court within ten (10} days of the date of this Memorandum Order.
If disputes remain, the parties shall file, within ten (10) days
of the date of this Memorandum Order, their competing proposals
for a Protective Order with the areas of disagreement
highlighted, so that the Court can adjudicate the parties'
disputes and enter a final order in this regard. Q
I
2

Case 1:04-cv-01453-JJF Document 43 Filed 08/24/2006 Page30f3
A
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Certain Exhibits Filed Q
With Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss For Failing To Comply With I
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (D.I. 38) is DENIED. 2
2. Defendants' Motion For A Privacy Act Protective Order Q
And For Permission To File Four Exhibits In Support Of i
Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Under Seal (D.I. 27) is GRANTED.
3. The parties shall file a stipulated Protective Order
within_ten (10) days of the date of this Memorandum Order, or if
disputes remain, their competing proposals for a Protective Order
with the areas of disagreement highlighted for adjudication by
the Court. l
Au ust 24 2006 `ql _ I
Date ED TATE DISTRICT JUDG
3