Wake v. Maher et al

Filing 23

Minute ORDER denying 21 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff Richard C. Wake, Defendants Theodore (I) James Maher, Theodore James Maher without prejudice, and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 9/2/09.(kmtcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 09­cv­01224­ZLW­KMT RICHARD C. WAKE, Plaintiff, v. DENVER POLICE OFFICER THEODORE JAMES (JIM) MAHER, in his official and individual capacity, Defendant. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA This matter is before me on the "Stipulated Motion for Protective Order" (#21, filed August 28, 2009). Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), 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 proposed Protective Order does not comply with the requirements established in Gillard. The parties are granted leave to submit a motion for protective order and revised form of protective order consistent with the comments contained here. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the "Stipulated Motion for Protective Order" (#21) is DENIED without prejudice, and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED. Dated: September 2, 2009

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?