Thomas et al v. Cummins Engine Company, Inc.
MINUTE ORDER. Unopposed Motion for Protective Order 47 is DENIED without prejudice, and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 8/18/14.(sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13BcvB02587BWJMBKMT
DANNY W. THOMAS, and
CUMMINS ENGINE COMPANY, INC., dba CUMMINS, INC., a foreign corporation,
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
This matter is before the court on the “Unopposed Motion for Protective Order” (Doc. No. 47,
filed August 18, 2014). The Motion is DENIED without prejudice, and the proposed Protective
Order is REFUSED.
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, the protective order must contain a mechanism by which a party may challenge the
designation of information as confidential. The following language would satisfy this provision:
A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL information
by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed 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.
Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 388-89.
The proposed Protective Order does not comply with the requirements established in Gillard.
Dated: August 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?