Beers v. City of Federal Heights et al

Filing 16

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 6/16/15. ORDERED that when filing restricted documents, parties MUST fully comply with the requirements of D.C.ColoL.CivR. 7.2. (cbssec)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00178-RM-CBS
CORY BEERS
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FEDERAL HEIGHTS and
CHIEF SEAN ELLIS
Defendants.

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Under Rule 26(c) FED. R. CIV. P., IT IS ORDERED:
1.

This Stipulated Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials

and information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to
interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, depositions, and other information
disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
2.

As used in this Stipulated Protective Order, “document” is defined as

provided in Rule 34(a), FED. R. CIV. P. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate
document within the meaning of this term.
3.

Confidential documents, materials, and information (collectively, the

“Confidential Information”) shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the

preparation and trial of this case. The duty to keep confidential information confidential
survives the completion of this case.
4.

With this Stipulated Protective Order, the parties seek to protect certain

types of confidential information. To the extent that such information cannot be filed in a
redacted format, the parties agree to designate as “Confidential” documents containing
the following information: (1) Social Security numbers, financial account numbers,
residential addresses, and cellular phone numbers; (2) medical information regarding
Plaintiff Cory Beers (“Plaintiff”), Defendant Sean Ellis, and any other current or former
employees of Defendant City of Federal Heights (“CFH”); (3) personnel records
involving individuals who are not parties to this case; and (4) trade secrets and
confidential proprietary information of Defendant CFH. As a condition of designating
documents for confidential treatment, the documents must be reviewed by a lawyer and
a good faith determination must be made that the documents are entitled to protection.
5.

A party designating documents as Confidential Information may do so by

marking such material with the legend "Confidential" or “subject to protective order”.
6.

Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of Confidential Information,

the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as “Confidential” and shall be
subject to the provisions of this Stipulated Protective Order. Such designation shall be
made on the record during the deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate
portions of depositions as Confidential after transcription, provided written notice is

2

promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court
reporter of the completion of the transcript.
7.

In addition to the information to which the parties seek to restrict public

access, Confidential Information may include, but is not limited to, sensitive and nonpublic information and records concerning compensation, employee duties and
performance, employee discipline and promotions, personnel decisions and other
documents related to Chief Ellis and third parties employment with Defendant CFH,
and Defendant CFH’s general business practices, financial matters, and technical,
strategic or other proprietary business information. All Confidential Information
designated “Confidential” may be reviewed only by the following persons:
a.

attorneys actively working on this case;

b.

persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys
actively working on the case whose assistance is required by said
attorneys in the preparation of the case, at trial, or at other
proceedings in this case;

c.

the parties, including Plaintiff, Defendants, and any advisory
witnesses who are directly assisting said attorneys in the
preparation of this case, as well as management employees of the
City, including the City Manager and City Council and the City’s
self-insurance pool;

d.

expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this
3

proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for
preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case;
e.

the Court, jurors and/or Court staff in any proceeding herein;

f.

stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily
incident to the conduct of this action;

g.

Any independent document reproduction services or document or
video recording and retrieval services;

h.

An author or recipient of the Confidential Discovery Material to be
disclosed, summarized, described, characterized or otherwise
communicated or made available, but only to the extent necessary
to assist counsel in the prosecution or defense of this action;

I.
j.
8.

deponents, witnesses or potential witnesses; and
other persons by written agreement of the parties.

A party may object to the designation of particular Confidential Information

by giving written notice to the party that designated the disputed information and all
other parties to the civil action. The written notice shall identify the information to which
the objection is made. If the parties cannot resolve the objection within fourteen (14)
business days after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the party
designating the information as Confidential Information to schedule a mutually
convenient time for a telephone conference with the Court as discussed in section III of
Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s Civil Practice Standards in order to request that the Court
4

determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this
Stipulated Protective Order. If contact with the Court is timely made, the disputed
information shall be treated as Confidential Information under the terms of this
Stipulated Protective Order until the Court rules on the issue. If the designating party
fails to contact the Court within the prescribed period, the disputed information shall
lose its designation as Confidential Information and shall not thereafter be treated as
Confidential Information in accordance with this Stipulated Protective Order. In
connection with a motion filed under this provision, the party designating the
information as Confidential Information shall bear the burden of establishing that good
cause exists for the disputed information to be treated as Confidential Information.
9.

Any request to restrict access must comply with the requirements of

D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.
10.

At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed

upon, each document and all copies thereof which have been designated as
Confidential Information shall be destroyed or preserved by counsel in a manner which
is fully consistent with the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order. At the end of the
litigation (including any appeals), counsel will not be required to return the material.
11.

This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good

cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard.
12.

Given the nature of the case, there is good cause to believe that discovery

may involve the disclosure of confidential information, which normally is required to be
5

maintained confidentially. A blanket protective order, therefore, is appropriate in this
case, and a document-by-document showing is not required. See Gillard v. Boulder
Valley Sch. Dist. Re-2, 196 F.R.D. 382, 386 (D. Colo. 2000).
13.

The Parties agree that in the event information or documentation is

inadvertently disclosed to an opposing Party, any information or documentation so
disclosed shall be immediately returned to the producing Party without any copies being
made or notes being taken regarding said information/documentation by those who
have received the inadvertent disclosure. Further, the Parties agree that no recipient of
inadvertently disclosed information or documentation shall utilize such
information/documentation or any fruits derived therefrom for the purposes of this
litigation and that the inadvertent disclosure of information or documentation shall not
constitute a waiver of any privilege that may otherwise apply.
14.

By agreeing to the entry of this Protective Order, the attorneys for the

Parties adopt no position as to the authenticity or admissibility of documents produced
subject to it. Neither the taking of any action in accordance with the provisions of this
Protective Order, nor the failure to object thereto, shall be construed as a waiver of any
claim or defense in this action.
15.

Nothing in this Protective Order shall preclude any attorney for a Party

from filing a motion seeking further or different protection from the Court under Rule
26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or from filing a motion with respect to the
manner in which Confidential Information shall be treated at trial.
6

DATED this _____ day of __________, 2015.
June
16th

BY THE COURT:

U.S. District Judge
Craig B. Shaffer 
United States Magistrate Judge 

APPROVED:

s/ Charlotte N. Sweeney
Charlotte N. Sweeney
Sweeney & Bechtold LLC
650 S. Cherry St., Ste 650
Denver, Colorado 80246
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]

s/ Marni Nathan Kloster
Marni Nathan Kloster
Nathan Dumm & Mayer, P.C.
7900 E. Union Ave., Ste. 600
Denver, CO 80237
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendants 

7