LuxeYard, Inc. v. Bell et al
MINUE ORDER. Motion for Protective Order 25 is DENIED without prejudice, and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/11/14.(sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13–cv–02990–MSK–KMT
RACHEL BELL and
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
This matter is before me on “Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order.” (Doc. No. 25, filed
Mar. 7, 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, 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.
Id. at 388-89.
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. 25) is DENIED
without prejudice, and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED.
Dated: March 11, 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?