JTS Choice Enterprises, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company et al

Filing 45

MINUTE ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 43 Stipulated Motion for Protective Order Regarding NCS Information, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/6/2012.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–03143–WJM–KMT

JTS CHOICE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, and
METRO PAINT SUPPLIES, INC.,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
The “Stipulated Motion for Protective Order Regarding NCS Information” (Doc. No. 43, filed
March 6, 2012) is DENIED without prejudice.
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.” Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386.
Additionally, the protective order must contain a mechanism by which a party may challenge
the designation of information as confidential. The following language would satisfy this
provision:
A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL information
by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information. The
written notice shall identify the information to which the objection is made. If the
parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days after the time
the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the party designating the
information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an appropriate motion requesting that the

court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms
of this Protective Order. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed information
shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective Order until
the Court rules on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a motion
within the prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as
CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in
accordance with this Protective Order. In connection with a motion filed under
this provision, the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall
bear the burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed information
to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL.
Gillard at 388-89.
The proposed Protective Order does not comply with the requirements established in Gillard.
Dated: March 6, 2012

2