NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/15/14. The Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order and E-Discovery Order 25 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. GRANTED insofar as it seeks entry of the E-Discovery Order, which I have entered separately; and DENIED insofar as it seeks entry of a blanket protective order. The parties are granted leave to submit a revised proposed protective order that is more consistent with the preferred form in Gillard. (bsimm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02351-RM-BNB
NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DUNKIN’ BRANDS GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order and E-Discovery
Order [Doc. # 25, filed 4/11/2014] (the “Joint Motion”), which is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
I regularly enter blanket protective orders “to facilitate orderly and efficient discovery. . .
.” Gillard v. Boulder Valley School Dist., 196 F.R.D. 382, 384 (D. Colo. 2000). A preferred
form of protective order is attached as an addendum to the Gillard decision. In this case,
however, the parties have presented a proposed blanket protective order that is 28 pages long and
unreasonably complex. I doubt that it will facilitate efficient discovery and, instead, is likely to
lead to unnecessary discovery disputes concerning compliance. I will consider entering a
blanket protective order more consistent with the preferred form in Gillard.
The E-Discovery Order, by contrast, is appropriate for its intended purpose, and I have
entered that order separately.
IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion [Doc. # 25] is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART as follows:
• GRANTED insofar as it seeks entry of the E-Discovery Order, which I have entered
separately; and
• DENIED insofar as it seeks entry of a blanket protective order. The parties are granted
leave to submit a revised proposed protective order that is more consistent with the preferred
form in Gillard.
Dated April 15, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2