IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00630-DME-MEH
NETQUOTE, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON BYRD, an internet user making use of the IP Addresses 64.136.27.226 and
64.136.26.227, and
MOSTCHOICE.COM, INC., a Georgia corporation,
Defendants.
NETQUOTE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiff NetQuote, Inc. (“NetQuote”), through undersigned counsel, moves for entry of
the attached Protective Order pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(c), and in support of its Motion states as
follows:
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1
Undersigned counsel certify that they conferred with Defendant’s counsel and requested
that Defendant stipulate to the attached protective order for confidential commercial information
and trade secrets. Defendant’s counsel would not agree to any stipulated protective order.
I. INTRODUCTION
It is surprising that MostChoice would not agree to a general protective order in this case.
Protective orders are . . . often obtained by agreement, particularly regarding
confidential information . . . . One distinguished judge noted in 1981 that he was
“unaware of any case in the past half-dozen years of even a modicum of
Case 1:07-cv-00630-DME-MEH Document 49 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 8
Netquote Inc. v. Byrd
Doc. 49
Dockets.Justia.com
2
complexity where an umbrella protective order . . . has not been agreed to by the
parties and approved by the Court.”
8 Charles Alan Wright, Arther R. Miller, Richard L. Marcus, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE § 2035 (2d ed. 2007) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 529
F. Supp. 866, 889 (D. Pa. 1981) (Becker, J.)).
An Order to protect NetQuote’s confidential commercial information and trade secrets is
necessary and proper. NetQuote stipulated to a protective order for discovery concerning
Defendant Byrd’s hard drive. See Dkt. # 41. NetQuote now seeks a similar protective order to
protect its confidential commercial information and trade secrets, as well as the addit