Dawson, et al v. Goldman Sachs & Co.

Filing 104

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 101 Motion for Protective Order. The proposed Protective Order is REFUSED, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 9/18/14.(sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13BcvB02030BCMABKMT

CLINTON J. DAWSON, and
JANELL DAWSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
This matter is before me on Defendants’ “Motion for Forthwith Entry of Protective Order.” (Doc.
No. 101, filed Sept. 17, 2014.) The Motion is DENIED and the proposed Protective Order is
REFUSED. Defendant is 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.” Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386.
The proposed Protective Order does not comply with the requirements established in Gillard.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 101) is DENIED
without prejudice, and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED.
Dated: September 18, 2014