IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF

Plaintiff

v.

JOHN RAMSEY and
PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

1:00-CV-1187-JEC

ORDER

This case is before the Court on Movant Steve Thomas’ Motion for Protective Order
<45> and Motion By Proposed Intervenor CBS Broadcasting Inc. to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Opposing
Movant’s Motion For Protective Order <82>.

Movant Steve Thomas was deposed by the parties during the course of discovery in this case. Prior to his testimony,
this Court entered a Stipulation and Protective Order <35> that provided for a procedure whereby parties and
non-party witnesses could request that certain discovery material be designated as confidential, including among
other things “information generated by the law enforcement investigation of the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey,” (Id.
at 1 (e)). Pursuant to that provision of the Protective Order, movant Thomas has moved that his deposition, in its
entirety, be deemed confidential and not be disclosed publicly.

In a sealed response—sealed because the defendants cited to portions of movant’s testimony that has been sealed
pending resolution of this motion—defendants have agreed that a small portion of the testimony is properly made
confidential, pursuant to the Order, but have disagreed with movant’s blanket assertion of this privilege as to the
entire deposition testimony. (Defs.’ Opp’n to Mot. For Protective Order <47>.) Rather, although defendants concede
that pages 10, 279-83, and 326-27 should remain confidential, they object to movant’s request that the remainder of
the deposition not be made public. In his Reply, movant discusses very little the reasons why he has shown good
cause to keep confidential his entire testimony. (Reply in Supp. of Mot. For Protective Order of Non-Party Witness
Steve Thomas <51>.) Instead, most of the discussion focuses on movant’s concern that defendants were exploiting
their subpoena power to depose movant in an effort to further defendants’ purportedly vast “media campaign”
against movant. (Id. at 5.) According to movant, defendants had mounted this campaign, in part, to aid them in an
80 million dollar libel suit that they had filed against movant. (Id.) In short, movant seeks to prevent such use being
made of testimony that defendants obtained through a court-ordered process.

The Court agrees with defendants’ contention that movant’s blanket assertion of confidentiality does not comply with
the requirement of the Protective Order that he show good cause. Moreover, the Court notes that defendants and
movant have now recently, on August 6, 2002, settled the litigation in which the Ramsey defendants had sued
movant. See Ramsey v. Thomas 1:01-CV-0801 (N.D. GA.) (Hunt, J.) at <31>. That being the case, the primary
reason for movant’s desire to keep the testimony confidential—his wish that the defendants not be allowed to use
this testimony to poison a potential jury pool prior to trial—may have now disappeared.

Accordingly, the primary justification for movant’s motion perhaps having now vanished and movant having failed to
show a particularized good cause for the sealing of his entire testimony, but instead having requested merely a
blanket order of sealing, based on a generalized justification, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE movant’s
Motion for Protective Order <45>. The Court makes this Order without prejudice to movant’s right to file, within
twenty (20) days, a particularized motion for good cause, explaining why specified sections of the testimony are
entitled to remain sealed. In the event that movant files such a motion, both plaintiff and defendants should be
prepared to respond, within twenty (20) days thereafter, with their position in this matter. As to CBS Broadcasting
Inc.’s Motion to Intervene <82>, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE that motion. In the event that movant
Thomas does file a renewed motion for protective order, CBS may again seek intervention status, and shall do so
within ten (10) days of the deadline for the filing of movant’s reply brief on any renewed motion.

Footnote : Depending on the substance of any motion made by movant Thomas, the Court may also seek the input
of current law enforcement and investigative officials who are responsible for the investigation of JonBenet Ramsey’s
murder.

SO ORDERED, this 11th day of September, 2002.

JULIE E. CARNES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE