American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. v. Denver Haslam et al

Filing 88

MINUTE ORDER denying 86 the Stipulated Motion for Protective Order. The parties are granted leave to file a revised proposed protective order (drafted separately from the motion and submitted to the Court in useable format, such as Word or Word Per fect) consistent with Gillard v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist., 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), in which the Court requires a mechanism by which the parties may challenge the designation of information as confidential. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/4/2009. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-00724-REB-MEH AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. DENVER HASLAM, COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, INC., MIKEL MEWBOURN, M&B DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., FALL RIVER VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC, ONEWEST BANK, FSB, and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 4, 2009. The Stipulated Motion for Protective Order [filed December 4, 2009; docket #86] is denied without prejudice, and the proposed Stipulated Protective Order is refused. The parties are granted leave to file a revised proposed protective order (drafted separately from the motion and submitted to the Court in useable format, such as Word or Word Perfect) consistent with Gillard v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist., 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), in which the Court requires a mechanism by which the parties may challenge the designation of information as confidential. See id. at 388-89.