IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02435-WJM-BNB

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INVESTORS CORPORATION, a Michigan non-profit

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIVIO, INC., a Delaware corporation,

BIVIO SOFTWARE ARTISANS, INC., a Colorado corporation, and

ROBERT NAGLER, an individual,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [Doc. # 25, filed

2/20/2012](the “Motion”), which is not opposed. The Motion is DENIED, and the proposed

Protective Order is REJECTED. The parties are granted leave to submit a revised proposed

Protective Order consistent with the comments contained here.

In Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), I set out

certain requirements for the issuance of a blanket protective order such as the one sought here.

Among other things, I require that any information designated by a party as confidential must

first be reviewed by a lawyer and that the designation as confidential must be “based on a good

faith belief that [the information] is confidential or otherwise entitled to protection” under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386. In addition, I require that the protective order

contain a mechanism by which a party may challenge the designation of information as

privileged. The addendum to the Gillard decision is a form of protective order which contains a

Case 1:11-cv-02435-WJM-BNB Document 31 Filed 03/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

provision that satisfies this requirement:

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 (10) 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 CONFIDENTIAL.

Id. at 388-89.

The proposed Protective Order requires the objecting party to file a motion addressing

the challenged information and, therefore, does not comply with the requirements established in

Gillard. 

In addition, Section 10 of the proposed Protective Order does not fully comply with the

provisions of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2. If the proposed Protective Order is resubmitted, Section 10

should provide only: “A party may seek to restrict access to Confidential Information as

provided in D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.”

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

Case 1:11-cv-02435-WJM-BNB Document 31 Filed 03/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

Dated March 5, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02435-WJM-BNB Document 31 Filed 03/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3