Opinion
Case No. 2:02-cv-00010PGC
May 1, 2003
ORDER REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER, DISCOVERY, AND NO CONTACT ORDER
This matter is before the court on PURE's motion for a protective order regarding discovery, and a no contact order. Defendant is directed to draft a mutual protective order, by May 9, 2003. The order should specify that any names and organizations disclosed to either party are subject to the protective order, and not to be disclosed outside of this litigation. Furthermore, it should specify that any names, or organizations disclosed in Sue Scheff's deposition, or other future depositions are subject to the order as well.
PURE has also requested this court bar discovery of the names of Sue Scheff, and PURE's clients, and the affiliated treatment facilities. Discovery of the names and organizations Sue Scheff refers clients to is allowed. These organizations are not "trade secrets" and would be easily available to any parents that chose to call into her organization.
PURE has also requested a no contact order. The court declines to enter a no contact order at this point in time because the court has insufficient evidence of improper conduct.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's motion to amend their counterclaim is GRANTED. (#20-1). Defendant's motion for a protective order is GRANTED, defendant's motion barring discovery is DENIED, and defendant's motion for a no contact order is DENIED. (#55-1).
SO ORDERED.