Crew Tile Distribution, Inc. v. Porcelanosa Los Angeles, Inc. et al

Filing 35

MINUTE ORDER. The Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Motion for Protective Order 32 is DENIED without prejudice, and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 5/8/14.(sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13–cv–03206–WJM–KMT

CREW TILE DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PORCELANOSA LOS ANGELES, INC.,
PORCELANOSA NEW YORK, INC.,
PORCELANOSA TEXAS, INC., and
PROVEN, LTD., all d/b/a PORCELANOSA USA,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
This matter is before the court on the “Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Motion for
Protective Order.” (Doc. No. 32, filed May 7, 2014.) The Motion is DENIED and the proposed
Protective Order is REFUSED. The parties are granted leave to submit a motion for protective
order and revised form of protective order consistent with the comments contained here.
First, the parties have improperly included their proposed Protective Order as part of their
Motion for Protective Order with their proposed Protective Order. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(g)
(providing that a proposed order must be on a separate document and bear a separate caption).
Second, 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 this requirement established in
Gillard.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the “Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Motion for

Protective Order” (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED without prejudice, and the proposed Protective
Order is REFUSED.
Dated: May 8, 2014

2