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)

Download PDF
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

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?