Page 1 of 6
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.
OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S ORDER
UPHOLDING ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY DESIGNATION
COMES NOW, Defendants in the above-styled action and files this their Objection to
Magistrate Hegarty’s Order [Dkt. #97] Granting the Plaintiff’s Motion to Designate documents
as Highly Confidential and shows this Court the following:
Brief History of the Case
Plaintiff and Defendant Mostchoice are competitors in the on-line insurance lead
generation industry. Mostchoice hired Brandon Byrd to make fictitious submissions through
plaintiff’s website for the purpose of obtaining the name of the agent(s) who received the
submitted application. Plaintiff’s related claims are for tortious interference and fraud. The
plaintiff sought, and was granted, a protective order that allowed for the designation of certain
documents, including a customer list as attorney’s eyes only.
Netquote Inc. v. Byrd
Doc. 98
Dockets.Justia.com
Page 2 of 6
In discovery, plaintiff produced certain documents that are e-mails and notes from phone
conversations of customers who purportedly left Netquote as a result of Byrd’s submissions.
These documents, like the vast majority of documents produced by Netquote in this litigation
have been designated as attorneys eyes only (“AEO”) under the protective order. The defendants
objected to the AEO designation of these documents, and the plaintiff moved for affirmation of
the designation.
Specific Objection
Pursuant to F.R.C.P.§ 72(a), Defendants object to the finding by Magistrate Hegarty that
plaintiff has properly designated certain documents as AEO because (1) there is no evidence in
the record to support such a determination (2) in light of the failure of the plaintiff to present
evidence, the rulin