When a protective order is requested to prevent disclosure of personal materials or information, the hearing officer must weigh the competing interests for and against disclosure. In re Nagen, CSA 27-08 (Order 5/14/08) citing In re Martinelli v. District Court, 199 Colo. 163, 612 P2d 1083 (Colo. 1980).

Hearing officer must determine whether good cause exists for issue of a protective order by balancing the public’s right to open access against the parties’ interests for and against disclosure. In re Nagen, CSA 27-08 (Order 5/14/08) citing In re Martinelli v District Court, 199 Colo. 163, 612 P2d 1083 (Colo. 1980).

Where stipulated motion for protective order lacks sufficient information from which hearing officer may weigh all interests, motion is denied for failure to establish good cause. In re Nagen, CSA 27-08 (Order 5/14/08).

Request for protective order must be supported by good cause, to wit, whose privacy or confidences are to be protected, the nature of the privacy interests sought to be protected, the nature of the documents the parties seek to protect, and a proposal for the least restrictive means that satisfy privacy concerns while respecting the public’s right to access public information. In re Nagen, CSA 27-08 (Order 5/14/08).