Filed: Jan. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge. This matter arises on Defendants' Proposed Revised Protective Order [Doc. # 52, filed 12/8/2011] (the "Second Motion"). A related issue previously was before me on Plaintiff's Motion for Blanket Protective Order [Doc. # 44, filed 11/11/2011] (the "First Motion"). Both parties sought the entry of a blanket protective order, but they could not agree on the proper scope of the material entitled to be designated as Confidential. I held a hearing on the
Summary: ORDER BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge. This matter arises on Defendants' Proposed Revised Protective Order [Doc. # 52, filed 12/8/2011] (the "Second Motion"). A related issue previously was before me on Plaintiff's Motion for Blanket Protective Order [Doc. # 44, filed 11/11/2011] (the "First Motion"). Both parties sought the entry of a blanket protective order, but they could not agree on the proper scope of the material entitled to be designated as Confidential. I held a hearing on the M..
More
ORDER
BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.
This matter arises on Defendants' Proposed Revised Protective Order [Doc. # 52, filed 12/8/2011] (the "Second Motion").
A related issue previously was before me on Plaintiff's Motion for Blanket Protective Order [Doc. # 44, filed 11/11/2011] (the "First Motion"). Both parties sought the entry of a blanket protective order, but they could not agree on the proper scope of the material entitled to be designated as Confidential. I held a hearing on the Motion on December 1, 2011. Despite my efforts to assist, the parties still are unable to agree on the scope of material entitled to be designated as Confidential.
Under circumstances like these, where the parties cannot agree even as to basics, I do not anticipate that a blanket protective order can be effectively utilized or that it will facilitate orderly and efficient discovery. See Gillard v. Boulder Valley Schools, 196 F.R.D. 382, 384 (D. Colo. 2000). Consequently, I will not enter one. If necessary, the parties may seek protection by means of particularized protective orders, id. at 385, but in doing so they should bear in mind the mandates of Rules 26(c)(3) and 37(a)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P., concerning the award of attorneys fees and costs.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) My previous Order [Doc. # 49, filed 12/1/2011] is VACATED; and
(2) The Second Motion [Doc. # 52] is DENIED.
