reFX AUDIO SOFTWARE INC. v. Does 1-123
Filing
130
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/19/2014. (evana, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03146-WYD-MEH
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
REFX
AUDIO SOFTWARE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEITH ESTES, et al.,
Defendants.
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to
protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or information which
will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing
discovery in this case, IT IS ORDERED:
1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and
information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to
interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony,
and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery
duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. As used in this Protective Order, “document” is defined as provided in
FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document
within the meaning of this term.
1
3. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be information that is
confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of
(a) Defendant Keith Estes, and (b) family members of Defendant Keith
Estes. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any
purpose except the preparation and trial of this case.
4. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively
“CONFIDENTIAL information”) shall not, without the consent of the party
producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such
information may be disclosed to:
a. attorneys actively working on this case;
b. persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys
actively working on the case whose assistance is required by said
attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings
in this case;
c. the parties, including Defendant Keith Estes’s family and
designated representatives for the Plaintiff;
d. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this
proceeding to the extent such disclosure is necessary for
preparation, trial, or other proceedings in this case;
e. the Court and its employees (“Court Personnel”);
f. stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings
necessarily incident to the conduct of this action;
g. deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; and
2
h. other persons by written agreement of the parties.
5. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL information to any persons listed
above (other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court
personnel and stenographic reporters), counsel shall provide such person
with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written
acknowledgement stating that he or she has read this Protective Order
and agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgements
shall be retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by
the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by Defendant.
6. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on
them (in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or
other appropriate notice: “CONFIDENTIAL.”
7. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL
information, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as
CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective
Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the
deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of
depositions as CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice
of the designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty
(30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the
transcript.
8. A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL
information by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed
3
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.
9. At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed
upon, each document and all copies thereof which have been designated
as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it
CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL
documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL
documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit
confirming the destruction.
4
10. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good
cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to
be heard.
BY THE COURT:
S/Michael E. Hegarty
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
APPROVED:
DATED: 03/17/2014
/s/ Paul A. Lesko
Paul A. Lesko
Attorney for Plaintiff
DATED:
/s/*
Keith Estes
Pro Se
*Defendant provided executed copy directly to
Court
6
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?