LuxeYard, Inc. v. Bell et al

Filing 29

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 13–cv–02990–MSK–KMT KHALED ALATTAR, Plaintiff, v. AARON BELL, CHRISTOPHER BELL, RACHEL BELL and WILLIAM BELL, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER 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 2

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?