## Facts

- Citizens First National Bank of Princeton sued Cincinnati Insurance Company in federal court over coverage under a directors-and-officers/trust-department errors-and-omissions policy after losses in the bank’s trust accounts.
- During the litigation, the district court entered a stipulated protective order allowing either party to mark as confidential any document the party believed contained trade secrets, other confidential information, governmental information, or fiduciary information, and to keep such material out of the public record.
- After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the bank.
- In the bank’s appeal on the merits, a party sought to file an appellate appendix under seal, relying on the protective order as authorization for secrecy in the appellate record.
- The Seventh Circuit addressed only the sealing/protective-order question and retained jurisdiction over the merits appeal while seeking input from the district court.

## Issues

1. Whether a blanket protective order that gives parties broad discretion to designate record material as confidential satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement for sealing judicial records.
2. Whether such an order, without specific judicial findings, justifies filing an appellate appendix under seal.
3. What role the public’s interest in access to judicial records plays in evaluating requests to seal materials used in adjudication.

## Decision

- The court held the district court erred by entering a protective order that effectively granted the parties broad authority to seal portions of the record without judicial findings.
- The court ruled that Rule 26(c) requires a judicial determination of “good cause” to seal any part of the record; party agreement and generic confidentiality labels are insufficient.
- The court remanded for the limited purpose of obtaining the district judge’s assessment whether good cause existed to file the appendix under seal and to revise the protective order consistent with these standards.
- The court retained appellate jurisdiction over the underlying merits dispute while the limited remand proceeded.

## Legal Principles

- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) permits protective orders only upon a showing of “good cause,” which requires judicial evaluation rather than private designation by the parties.
- Courts may not delegate to litigants unilateral control over what becomes part of the public judicial record; the public has an independent interest in court proceedings and filings.
- Sealing must be supported by specific, case-linked reasons and should be limited to material whose disclosure would cause a serious, clearly defined injury that outweighs the presumption of public access.
- Confidentiality determinations may require reconsideration over time; a stale protective order does not automatically justify continued sealing in later stages, including appeal.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit rejected reliance on a blanket, party-driven protective order as a sufficient basis to seal appellate record materials and required the district court to make (and update) specific Rule 26(c) good-cause determinations before any portion of the judicial record could be kept from public view.


Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999)