Theiss et al v. I-Flow, Inc. et al

Filing 95

MINUTE ORDER denying 92 Unopposed Motion for Entry of Stipulated Qualified Protective Order, and the proposed Protective Order is refused, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 11/2/09.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 08­cv­02606­PAB­KMT VINTON THEISS, and LISA THEISS, Plaintiffs, v. I-FLOW, INC., a Delaware corporation; HOSPIRA, INC., a Delaware corporation, ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois Corporation; d/b/a AP Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, a Delaware corporation d/b/aAbbott Sales, Market & Distribution Company, ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois Corporation; ABBOTT LABORATORIES d/b/a Abbott Sales, Marketing & Distribution Company, a Delaware Corporation; Defendants. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA The "Unopposed Motion for Entry of Stipulated Qualified Protective Order" (#92, filed October 28, 2009) is DENIED and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED. The proposed Protective Order does not comply with the requirements established in Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000). Gillard set out certain requirements for the issuance of a blanket protective order such as the one sought here. Among other things, any information designated by a party as confidential must first be reviewed by a lawyer who will certify that the designation as confidential is "based on a good faith belief that [the information] is confidential or otherwise entitled to protection" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7). Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386.

The parties are granted leave to submit a motion for protective order and revised form of protective order consistent with the comments contained here. Dated: November 2, 2009

2