Scarbrough v. Coleman Company, Inc., The

Filing 24

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 22 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Agreed Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/3/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00260-LTB-MEH
KYLE SCARBROUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 3, 2013.
Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Agreed Protective Order [filed May 31, 2013;
docket #22] is denied without prejudice, and the proposed Agreed Protective Order is refused for
the following reasons.
First, section G of the proposed order appears to be inconsistent with the requirements set
forth in Fed. R. Evid. 502. The parties are granted leave to submit a revised proposed order
consistent with Rule 502.
Second, section H is inconsistent with Gillard v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist., 196 F.R.D. 382
(D. Colo. 2000), in which the Court requires a mechanism by which the parties may challenge the
designation of information as confidential. See id. at 388-89. The parties are granted leave to
submit a revised proposed order consistent with Gillard.
Finally, the Court declines to retain continuing jurisdiction after the termination of the action,
as suggested in section I.
The parties are permitted to re-file the motion together with a proposed order that conforms
to this order. If they choose to re-file the motion, the parties are directed to provide this Court with
a copy of the proposed order in Word or Word Perfect format.