Smith v. Gavulic

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 14 Motion for Protective Order--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM D. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:15-cv-10288
District Judge Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

MELANIE GAVULIC, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER (DE 14) AND REQUIRING THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED
PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants’ motion for
protective order regarding Plaintiff’s continuing obligations to keep Hurley
Medical Center confidences and secrets under Michigan Rule of Professional
Conduct (“M.R.P.C.”) 1.6 (DE 14), Plaintiff’s response (DE 15), and Defendants’
reply (DE 17). Judge Michelson referred the instant motion to me on June 15,
2015, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (DE 16.) The motion came before the
Court for oral argument on July 22, 2015.
The Court’s oral findings and opinion were placed on the record at the time
of the hearing with respect to the need for a protective order regarding Plaintiff’s
continuing obligations to keep Hurley Medical Center confidences and secrets, and

on the applicability and limitations contained in M.R.P.C. 1.6, and are hereby
incorporated by reference in this Order. The Court has found, inter alia, that under
M.R.P.C. 1.6, Plaintiff is prohibited from disclosing “confidences” and “secrets” –
as those terms are defined by M.R.P.C. 1.6(a)–arising from his former service as
in-house counsel to Defendant Hurley Medical Center (and his ongoing obligations
arising therefrom) in support of the claims he has made in this lawsuit; however,
this prohibition is subject to the limited exception that he may “reveal . . .
confidences or secrets necessary to . . . defend . . . against an accusation of
wrongful conduct” M.P.R.C. 1.6(c)(5), which exception applies to any accusation
of wrongdoing attributed to him by Defendant in its Affirmative Defense #4 (DE 8
at 10) or any accusation of wrongdoing attributed to him in any justification for
terminating his employment that may be articulated by Defendants in this case.
Any such exceptional disclosure or revelation “should be made in a manner which
limits access to the information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to
know it, and appropriate protective orders or other arrangements should be sought
by the lawyer to the fullest extent practicable.” M.R.P.C. 1.6, Comments: Dispute
Concerning Lawyer’s Conduct. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED
(DE 14), as the Court finds that it is necessary to have a mechanism for screening
and circumscribing the disclosure and use of such privileged information.

2 

The parties are DIRECTED to confer and submit a joint proposed
protective order, which reflects the Court’s ruling from the bench, within ten days
of receiving the hearing transcript, or, if unable to agree upon language that should
be contained within such a protective order, shall each submit proposed protective
orders for the Court’s consideration. Nothing in this Order or any future protective
order entered as a result of the instant motion supersedes or abrogates the existing
protective order (DE 13), provisions of which may be utilized in the interim to
designate or protect matters that may be subject to M.R.P.C 1.6, as necessary, until
such time as a protective order specific to the issue of attorney-client privilege is
entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2015

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that on July 24, 2015, a copy of the document was sent to parties of
record on July 24, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager to the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3