Perry Jr. v. Cox Communications et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RUSSELL PERRY II,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COX COMMUNICATIONS, LEXISNEXIS
RISK SOLUTIONS, and EXPERIAN
CREDIT BUREAU,
Defendants.
8:23CV121
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ Joint Motion for a Protective
Order (Filing No. 134) and Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order and Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order. (Filing No. 135). After careful consideration of
each motion, the court finds that good cause does support the entry of a Protective Order
in this case, as it appears the parties also agree that one is needed. Neither party uses the
court’s standard protective order, with Defendant wanting to “protect its employees from
annoyance and harassment,” as well as prevent dissemination of internal propriety
commercial information, and Plaintiff wanting to narrowly tailor any proposed language
to be consistent with the rights of an identity-theft victim under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act. Accordingly, both motions are granted in part, as the court agrees that a protective
order in this matter is warranted, however the court will issue its standard protective order.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ryan C. Carson
United States Magistrate Judge
8:23-cv-00121-SMB-RCC Doc # 138 Filed: 11/21/25 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID #
<pageID>