Madrigal v. Carroll et al

Filing 91

ORDER granting 65 Defendants Carroll, Collins, Silver and Wyukstra, in their individual capacities Motion to Enforce Protective Order, as set forth in the Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 8/13/2013.(mjwcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01918-PAB-MJW
MARGARITA MADRIGAL, individually
and on behalf of the Estate of Juan Contreras and as next friend of the minor children,
M.M., a minor child,
R.M.M., a minor child,
J.M., a minor child,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
RANDALL CARROLL, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora,
CRAIG COLLINS, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora,
KEVIN ROLLINS, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora,
TIMOTHY DUFOUR, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora
J.D. WYKSTRA, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora
LELAND SILVER, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora
DANIEL J. OATES, individually, and as Chief of Police of the City of Aurora,
JOHN and JANE DOES, Aurora Police officers whose true names and identifies are
unknown
CITY of AURORA, COLORADO, a municipal corporation.
Defendant(s).

ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOCKET NO. 65)

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

This matter is before the court on Defendants Carroll, Collins, Silver and
Wyukstra, in their individual capacities, Motion to Enforce Protective Order (docket no.
65). The court has reviewed the subject motion (docket no. 65), the response (docket
no. 82), and the reply (docket no. 86). In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of
the court’s file and has considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case

2
law. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:
1.

That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties
to this lawsuit;

2.

That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;

3.

That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to
be heard;

4.

That Defendants seek protection of discovery they provided to
Plaintiff under bates numbered materials 4731 - 25062 which are at
issue in the subject motion (docket no. 65). Defendants argue that
such materials as outlined above have been produced to Plaintiff
per Plaintiff’s discovery requests, are private and personal, are
labeled “police personnel files,” pursuant to the Protective Order
(docket no. 51-1), and are furthermore “CONFIDENTIAL” and
therefore are subject to protection under the previously-issued
written Protective Order (docket no. 51-1). Moreover, Defendants
argue that under Martinelli v. District Court, 199 Colo. 163 (Colo
1980), Plaintiff has not presented any reason, much less a
compelling reason, to override the clear privacy interest of the
Defendant Officers in their police personnel files. In addition,

3
Defendants do not dispute that privacy interests of police officers in
personnel records should be narrowly construed, pursuant to
Mason v. Stock, 869 F. Supp. 828, 834 (D. Kan. 1994). However,
in this case I find that the disputed materials have been turned over
to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has had access and use of such materials
listed above in the prosecution of Plaintiff’s case. Accordingly,
Plaintiff has not demonstrated any real prejudice, and Plaintiff has
not demonstrated a compelling reason not to continued to
designate the above listed materials a “CONFIDENTIAL;” and
5.

That in Plaintiff’s response (docket no. 82), Plaintiff first argues that
the designation of “CONFIDENTIAL” and protection under the
Protective Order (docket no. 51-1) should be denied because
Defendants’ motion is untimely. Here, Defendants proceeded
under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 [meet and confer rule] prior to filing the
subject motion (docket no. 65) as outlined in the subject motion
(docket no. 65). I find that extensive conferral took place between
the parties in an effort to avoid having to file the subject motion
(docket no. 65) with this court as to the confidentially of the abovelisted materials. I further find that compliance with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 was required prior to the filing of the subject
motion (docket no. 65) and therefore in looking at the dates of
conferral, the subject motion (docket no. 65) has been filed timely.

4
See paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 in the Reply (docket no. 86) for efforts
to confer between the parties.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this
court ORDERS:
1.

That Defendants Carroll, Collins, Silver and Wyukstra, in their
individual capacities Motion to Enforce Protective Order (docket no.
65) is GRANTED. The bates numbered materials 4731 - 25062
described as “police personnel files,” are “CONFIDENTIAL”
and are protected under the previously-issued written Protective
Order (docket no. 51-1); and

2.

That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this
motion.

Done this 13th day of August 2013.
BY THE COURT

s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE