Forst v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 473856, No. 07-CV-612 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2008) and Schmude v. Tricam Industries, inc., 2008 WL 73319, No. 07-C-457 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 7, 2008) address discovery-related issues. In Forst, the parties submitted a stipulated protective order for confidentiality of materials. Discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), General L.R. 79.4(c) and Civil L.R. 26.4, the court declined to enter the order. Although the order set forth a “properly demarcated category of legitimate confidential information,” the order did not provide that “any interested member of the public” could challenge the sealing of documents. The order also impermissibly permitted a party to file documents under seal without first moving for leave to file the documents under seal. In Schmude, the plaintiff moved to quash a videotaped trial deposition. Plaintiff had scheduled a discovery deposition of defendant’s expert, and defendant scheduled a trial deposition for later in the day. Plaintiff complained that he would not have sufficient time to prepare for the trial testimony. The expert had already submitted 3 expert reports. The court concluded that as long as counsel was allowed an appropriate break of 30-45 minutes, the trial deposition could proceed. If new information were to emerge in the discovery deposition, the plaintiff could renew his request for a delay in the trial deposition, and if the defendants refused, the plaintiff could request partial or complete exclusion of the deposition at trial.