Burkhart v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 40 Unopposed Motion for Confidentiality and Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/29/2015.(slibi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00187-WJM-MEH
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 29, 2015.
The Unopposed Motion for Confidentiality and Protective Order [filed October 27, 2015;
docket #40] is denied without prejudice. The parties’ proposal to the Court is internally
inconsistent as the fourth paragraph improperly places the burden on the objecting party to file a
motion, while the seventh paragraph properly places that burden on the designating party, pursuant
to Gillard v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist., 196 F.R.D. 382, 388-89 (D. Colo. 2000).
The parties are granted leave to submit a revised proposed protective order containing a
mechanism by which the parties may challenge the designation of information as confidential that
is consistent with Gillard and that is internally consistent. However, should the parties choose to
submit a revised proposed order, the Court also requires an explanation as to why the existing
Protective Order issued June 25, 2015 [see docket #31] could not be amended to accomplish the
purposes the parties currently seek.
In addition, should the parties choose to re-file, the parties shall submit to Chambers a copy
of the proposed protective order in useable format (Word, WordPerfect) by email at
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?