Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 43 Joint Motion for for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED. by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 6/4/2010.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 09­cv­02757­WYD­KMT COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit Corporation, ANITA HANSEN, ROBERT SIROWITZ, JOSHUA STAPEN, ROBIN STEPHENS, and BENJAMIN HERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC, and J.M. HOLLISTER LLC, d/b/a HOLLISTER CO., Defendants. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA This matter is before me on the "Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order" [Doc. No. 43 , filed Jun. 3, 2010]. The Motion is DENIED and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED. The parties are granted leave to submit a motion for protective order and revised form of protective order consistent with the comments contained here. 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. Dated: June 4, 2010.