Sanchez et al v. Simply Right, Inc. et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying without prejudice 44 Stipulated Motion for Entry of Protective Order by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/8/2015.(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00974-RM-MEH
AURELIO SANCHEZ,
DOMINGO SANCHEZ,
DANIEL HERNANDEZ,
MIGUEL ANGEL GODOY,
JOSE LUIS ARREOLA,
BENITA ARREOLA, and
CLARA ARRELOA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SIMPLY RIGHT, INC.,
CINEMARK USA, INC.,
DANIEL KILGORE, and
BEATRICE PERMAN,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 8, 2015.
The Stipulated Motion for Entry of Protective Order [filed October 7, 2015; docket #44] is
denied without prejudice, and the proposed Stipulated Protective Order is refused. The parties are
granted leave to submit a revised proposed protective order consistent with Gillard v. Boulder Valley
Sch. Dist., 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), in which the Court requires a specific mechanism by
which the parties may challenge the designation of information as confidential.1 See id. at 388-89.
Also, the Court notes that the first sentence of paragraph 13 may be construed as permitting
continued jurisdiction over the matter after the termination of the case, which the Court will not
permit.
Should the parties choose to re-file the motion and protective order as modified in
accordance with this order, they shall also provide a copy of the proposed order in useable format
(Word, Word Perfect) to the Court.

1

The Court in Gillard specifically required that the designating party, as the party with
the burden of proof, file a motion with the Court in the event of an objection, to ensure such
party be allowed the opportunity to file a reply brief.