Opinion
Case No. 04-2303-GTV-DJW.
December 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the parties' Motion for Entry of Agreed Protective Order (doc. 15). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied and the parties are directed to submit a revised proposal by December 21, 2004.
The decision whether to enter a protective order lies within the sound discretion of the court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that the court, upon a showing of good cause, "may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." The Scheduling Order entered in this case requires that at all "jointly proposed protective orders shall include . . . a concise but sufficiently specific recitation of the particular facts in this case that would provide the court with an adequate basis upon which to make the required finding of good cause pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)."
Thomas v. IBM, 48 F.3d 478, 482 (10th Cir. 1995).
Doc. 6, ¶ II(k).
Upon review of the parties' submission, the Court finds the proposed Protective Order fails to contain a "sufficiently specific recitation" of good cause. The protective order, as currently drafted, is virtually limitless and allows the parties to designate any business information as "confidential." At a minimum, the proposed order must define the characteristics of the documents and information claimed to be "confidential."
Moreover, the parties are reminded that orders of a court are binding on parties to the pending cause and cannot bind non-parties; thus, any provision within a proposed protective order stating otherwise is inaccurate.
In light of the above, the Court is unable to grant the parties' request to enter the Protective Order submitted by the parties. Thus, the Motion is denied and the parties are hereby granted leave for additional time — up to and including December 21, 2004 — in which to submit a revised, agreed protective order consistent with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.