UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM D. SMITH, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MELANIE GAVULIC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 2:15-cv-10288 

District Judge Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

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 

2:15-cv-10288-LJM-APP Doc # 19 Filed 07/24/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 263
2

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. 

2:15-cv-10288-LJM-APP Doc # 19 Filed 07/24/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 264
3

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 

2:15-cv-10288-LJM-APP Doc # 19 Filed 07/24/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 265