National Association of Investors Corporation v. Bivio, Inc. et al
Filing
31
ORDER denying 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/5/2012.(ervsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02435-WJM-BNB
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INVESTORS CORPORATION, a Michigan non-profit
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
BIVIO, INC., a Delaware corporation,
BIVIO SOFTWARE ARTISANS, INC., a Colorado corporation, and
ROBERT NAGLER, an individual,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [Doc. # 25, filed
2/20/2012](the “Motion”), which is not opposed. The Motion is DENIED, and the proposed
Protective Order is REJECTED. The parties are granted leave to submit a revised proposed
Protective 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. In addition, I require that the protective order
contain a mechanism by which a party may challenge the designation of information as
privileged. The addendum to the Gillard decision is a form of protective order which contains a
provision that satisfies this requirement:
A party may object to the designation of particular
CONFIDENTIAL information by giving written notice to the party
designating the disputed information. The written notice shall
identify the information to which the objection is made. If the
parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days
after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the
party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an
appropriate motion requesting that the court determine whether the
disputed information should be subject to the terms of this
Protective Order. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed
information shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms
of this Protective Order until the Court rules on the motion. If the
designating party fails to file such a motion within the prescribed
time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as
CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as
CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with this Protective Order. In
connection with a motion filed under this provision, the party
designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the
burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed
information to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL.
Id. at 388-89.
The proposed Protective Order requires the objecting party to file a motion addressing
the challenged information and, therefore, does not comply with the requirements established in
Gillard.
In addition, Section 10 of the proposed Protective Order does not fully comply with the
provisions of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2. If the proposed Protective Order is resubmitted, Section 10
should provide only: “A party may seek to restrict access to Confidential Information as
provided in D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.”
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
2
Dated March 5, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?