JOHN GORMAN, Magistrate Judge
Ruling on the parties' uncontested Motion for Protective Order (#17) is deferred. The proposed protective order contains provisions for filing under seal. Those provisions are inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing (Civil) of this Court. See, Section III: DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL AND EX PARTE MOTIONS.
Moreover, sealing of documents is an "exceptional measure,"Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994), appropriate only under certain circumstances. See, Jessup v. Luther, 2772 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2002); Baxter Intern'l Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002); Union Oil Co. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000); Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944-945 (7th Cir. 1999);United States v. Eppinger, 49 F.3d 1244, 1252-53 (7th Cir. 1995);B.H. v. McDonald, 49 F.3d 294, 301 (7th Cir. 1995). The Court will not approve the filing of documents under seal as a routine matter, as the proposed order would permit.
Parties are directed to re-submit within 14 days an amended proposed protective order consistent with this Order.