Obermeyer Hydro Accessories, Inc. v. CSI Calendering, Inc. et al
MINUTE ORDER granting in part 31 Motion for Protective Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to modify and enter the proposed Protective Order accordingly, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 6/16/14.(sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–00184–RM–KMT
OBERMEYER HYDRO ACCESSORIES, INC., d/b/a OBERMEYER HYDRO, INC., a
CSI CALENDERING, INC., d/b/a CSI CALENDERING SPECIALISTS, INC., a North Dakota
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Defendant’s “Uncontested Motion for Protective Order” (Doc. No. 31, filed June 13, 2014) is
GRANTED in part. The proposed Stipulated Protective Order will be entered with the following
The third sentence of Paragraph 5(a) of the proposed Protective Order provides that “[t]he party
filing any Confidential Document (the “Filing Party”) shall be responsible for filing a concurrent
Motion to Restrict Public Access in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c) citing as grounds
for the restriction the existence of this Protective Order.” (Doc. No. 31-1, ¶ 5(a), emphasis
added.) D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c)(2) explicitly provides that “stipulated protective orders with
regard to discovery, alone, are insufficient to justify restriction.” Instead a party seeking
restriction must fully address the factors outlined in Local Rule 7.2.
Accordingly, the underlined language quoted above is not acceptable and will be removed from
the Protective Order entered by the court. The Clerk of Court is directed to modify and enter the
proposed Protective Order accordingly.
Dated: June 16, 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?