Whittle v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER denying 35 Unopposed Motion for Entry of Protective Order. The Motion is denied and the proposed Protective Order is rejected, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 02/02/09.(wjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 08-cv-01525-MSK-BNB LISA C. WHITTLE, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Protective Order [Doc. # 35, filed 1/28/2009] (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED and the proposed Protective Order is REJECTED. The parties are granted leave to submit a revised draft order consistent with the comments contained here. In Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), I set out certain requirements for the issuance of a blanket protective order such as the one sought here. Among other things, I require that any information designated by a party as confidential must first be reviewed by a lawyer and that the designation as confidential must be "based on a good faith belief that [the information] is confidential or otherwise entitled to protection" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386. The addendum to the Gillard decision is a preferred form of protective order. The draft protective order does not comply with the requirements established in Gillard. Among other things, it does not limit what may be designated as Confidential in a manner

consistent with Rule 26(c)(1)(G), and it is in the form of a stipulation rather than an order. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Dated February 2, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge

2