Running Foxes Petroleum, Inc v. Nighthawk Production LLC
MINUTE ORDER granting 36 Motion for Entry of a Protective Order by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/17/14.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01466-MSK-MJW
RUNNING FOXES PETROLEUM, INC.,
NIGHTHAWK PRODUCTION LLC,
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Entry of a Protective Order
(docket no. 36) is GRANTED for those reasons stated below.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the written Protective Order (docket no. 36-1) is
APPROVED as amended in paragraph 18 and made an Order of Court.
I find that the decision to issue a protective order rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court. Wang v. Hsu, 919 F.2d 130, 130 (10th Cir. 1990). I further
find that Defendant has established good cause for a protective order under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(c) and Gillard v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist., 196 F.R.D. 382, 386 (D. Colo.
2000), and that Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors in the oil and gas industry in the
Rocky Mountain Region. Moreover, I find that discovery in this case will involve the
exchange of confidential information in the form of trade secrets and/or other protected
propriety information, noting the claims brought within the Complaint (docket no. 5) and
noting the claims and defenses outlined in the Rule 16 Civil Scheduling Order (docket
no. 31). Although some of the information that Defendant seeks to be classified as
“Confidential or Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only” may already be in the public
domain, there clearly will be other information that will be sought and exchanged in the
discovery process by both Plaintiff and Defendant that is not currently in the public
domain, and such discovery requested may fall into the category of either trade secret
or other propriety information. Nevertheless, the Protective Order (docket no. 36-1) that
this court has approved and an Order of Court has built into it the requirement of “good
faith” determination of any information that either side believes should be designated as
“Confidential or Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only,” and it provides for a procedure to
challenge designations. Lastly, the Protective Order (docket no. 36-1) grants the
ultimate authority to the court to either allow or deny a “Confidential or Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only” designation. For these reasons, the subject motion (docket no.
36) should be granted.
Date: September 17, 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?