Avalon Condominium Association, Inc. v. SECURA Insurance
PROTECTIVE ORDER. Defendant Secura Insurance, a Mutual Company's Motion for (1) Entry of Confidential Protective Order and (2) For in Camera Review of Redacted and Withheld Documents 46 is GRANTED. The documents withheld from production whi ch are the subject matter of this motion shall be produced in their entirety, without redactions, marked as "CONFIDENTIAL" and subject to the provisions of this Protective Order, on or before October 6, 2014, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 9/29/14. (sgrim) Modified on 9/30/2014 to include ruling on the motion. (sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–00200–CMA–KMT
AVALON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCATION, INC.,
SECURA INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY,
This matter is before the court on “Defendant Secura Insurance, a Mutual Company’s
Motion for (1) Entry of Confidential Protective Order and (2) For in Camera Review of Redacted
and Withheld Documents” [Doc. No. 46].
It appears that the parties are in conflict over whether a blanket protective order should be
entered in this case which would protect confidential information about the business of the
Defendant insurance company in connection with production of discovery in this case.
Blanket protective orders do nothing more than place upon the parties themselves, or
others from whom discovery is sought, the initial burden of determining what information is
entitled to protection. A blanket protective order “requires that counsel for a producing party
review the information to be disclosed and designate the information it believes, in good faith, is
confidential or otherwise entitled to protection. The designated information is thereafter entitled
to the protections afforded by the blanket protective order.” Gillard v. Boulder Valley School
Dist. Re.-2, 196 F.R.D. 382, 386 (D. Colo. 2000)(emphasis added). A proper blanket protective
order must contain provisions for challenging the marking of a document as confidential. Id.
“Judicial review of a party’s designation as confidential occurs only when there is such an
objection which the parties cannot resolve by agreement.” Id.
The agreement of all parties is not required for the entry of a blanket protective order.
Id.; See Parkway Gallery Furniture, Inc. v. Kittinger/Pennsylvania House Group, Inc., 121
F.R.D. 264, 268 (M.D.N.C.1988). The Protective Order entered by a court, however, must
conform with the following
First, a party must make some threshold showing of good cause to believe
that discovery will involve confidential or protected information. This may be
done on a generalized as opposed to a document-by-document basis. Moreover,
even though a blanket protective order permits all documents to be designated as
confidential, a party must agree to only invoke the designation in good faith. After
receiving documents, the opposing party has the right to contest those documents
which it believes not to be confidential. At this stage, the party seeking the
protection shoulders the burden of proof in justifying retaining the confidentiality
designation. Thus, the burden of proving confidentiality never shifts from the
party asserting that claim—only the burden of raising that issue.
Parkway, id. Blanket protective orders serve the interests of a just, speedy, and less expensive
determination of complex disputes by alleviating the need for and delay occasioned by extensive
and repeated judicial intervention. In the context of this case, the court cannot fathom why the
Plaintiff objects to such an order nor why the Plaintiff has chosen to “not fully brief[ ] this issue
because it submits that an oral, in person hearing, would allow the Court to make more expedient
judicial determinations.” (Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Secura Insurance, a Mutual
Company’s Motion for (1) Entry of Confidential Protective Order [Doc. No. 49] at 2.) To the
contrary, the Plaintiff’s objection appears completely frivolous in light of the fact it stands to
obtain full production of the information it seeks if only it agrees to treat the information as
confidential to this case absent a court order to the contrary. As stated by Judge Boland in
Gillard, “[i]n view of increasingly complex cases and the existing workload of the trial courts,
“[b]lanket protective orders are essential to the functioning of civil discovery. [A]bsent [such
orders], discovery would come to a virtual standstill. . . .” Gillard at 386, quoting Bayer AG and
Miles, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, 162 F.R.D. 456, 465–66 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (disagreed with on
other grounds S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2nd Cir. 2001).)
The court finds that the Defendant has made a showing of good cause in support of the
entry of a protective order to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information
or information which will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person
providing discovery in this case. Therefore, the court enters the following
1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information, including
without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for
admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or
discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. As used in this Protective Order, “document” is defined as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).
A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term.
3. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be information that is confidential and
implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of the parties in confidential, proprietary,
or trade secret information that may be subject to discovery in this action, but that should not be
made publicly available. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any
purpose except the preparation and trial of this case.
4. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively “CONFIDENTIAL
information”) shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the
Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed to:
(a) attorneys actively working on this case;
(b) persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on the
case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other
proceedings in this case;
(c) the parties, including designated representatives for the entity defendant;
(d) expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the
extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case;
(e) the Court and its employees (“Court Personnel”);
(f) stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the
conduct of this action;
(g) deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; and
(h) other persons by written agreement of the parties.
5. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL information to any person listed above (other than
counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court Personnel and stenographic reporters), counsel
shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a
written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and agrees to be
bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by counsel and shall be
subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing
6. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in a manner
that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice:
7. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL information, the
deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the
provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the
deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as
CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the designation is promptly
given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the
completion of the transcript.
8. 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 (14) 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
9. At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each document and
all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party
that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL
documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying
party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming the destruction.
10. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause shown
following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard.
Further, the court has reviewed the documents submitted to the court on a DVD Rom
medium with a folder labeled “Documents as prepared for Disclosure” which appears to contain
redacted documents, and a folder labeled “Documents Marked for In Camera Review.”1
Although the court is not altogether sure what exactly -- beyond the grant of a blanket protective
order -- the Defendant is requesting of the court, the court finds that the documents are
responsive to discovery requests and are relevant under the broad auspices of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
(b)(1) and Klesch & Co. Ltd. v. Liberty Media Corp., 217 F.R.D. 517, 523 (D. Colo. 2003)
(discovery procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures seek to further the interests of
justice by minimizing surprise at trial and ensuring wide-ranging discovery of information) and
Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614, 619 (D. Colo. 2007). The
The storage medium submitted to the court will be filed by the Clerk of the Court and held as
“conventionally filed document.”
court finds that the information generated prior to the filing of this lawsuit does not qualify for
“work product” protection since the documents contain underwriting information not prepared in
anticipation of litigation. See American Banker=s Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Colo. Flying Academy, Inc.,
97 F.R.D. 515, 516 n.1 (D. Colo. 1983) (noting that Rule 26(b)(3) codifies the work product
doctrine recognized in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)). Therefore, the information in
the redacted documents, as well as in the unredacted documents will be sufficiently protected by
entry of the Protective Order herein.
It is further ORDERED
“Defendant Secura Insurance, a Mutual Company’s Motion for (1) Entry of Confidential
Protective Order and (2) For in Camera Review of Redacted and Withheld Documents” [Doc.
No. 46]” is GRANTED. The documents withheld from production which are the subject matter
of this motion shall be produced in their entirety, without redactions, marked as
“CONFIDENTIAL” and subject to the provisions of this Protective Order, on or before
October 6, 2014.
DATED this 29th day of September, 2014.
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?