Macieyovski v. City and County of Devner, Department of General Services

Filing 39

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 3/7/16. The Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order 32 is GRANTED; Defendant's Opposing Motion To The Defendant Join And Stipulated Motion For Protective Order is DENIED; and This court will separately enter the Protective Order. (bsimm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01550-MSK-NYW
VINCENT MACIEYOVSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Department of General Services,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter is before the court pursuant to the Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order
[#32, filed February 19, 2016] and Plaintiff’s “Opposing Motion To The Defendant Join And
Stipulated Motion For Protective Order” (“Opposition”) [#34, filed February 29, 2016]. These
motions were referred to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order of Reference dated July 29,
2015 [#6] and the Memorandum dated February 22 and 29, 2016 [#32, #34]. The court has
reviewed the Parties’ papers and has held a Status Conference on March 7, 2016.
Courts in this District have ordered the entry of Protective Orders to facilitate discovery
that may implicate a party’s confidential information. See Gillard v. Boulder Valley School
Dist., 196 F.R.D 382 (D. Colo. 2000). Parties are not required to designate documents as
confidential, and designation of confidentiality under a Protective Order does not necessarily
result in restriction of the document or the information from the public record. See
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c). The mere fact that any party—or even a third-party—designates the
document as sensitive for purposes of a protective order is not grounds for restriction. See L-3
Commc'ns Corp. v. Jaxon Eng'g & Maint., Inc., No. 10-CV-02868-MSK-KMT, 2015 WL
5117792, at *24 (D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2015). Therefore, the entry of a Protective Order does not
necessarily result in the restriction of public access to Defendant’s documents, a concern
identified by Plaintiff during the telephonic Status Conference.
This court has reviewed the Proposed Protective Order [#32-1], and notes that Plaintiff’s
stated objection appeared to be that Defendant had not sent him a final version before filing it.
To the extent that this court understands Plaintiff’s Opposition seeks to strike the Protective
Order, such motion cannot be brought in a response. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).

Finding good cause to enter the Protective Order to allow for discovery that might
otherwise draw an objection based on the sensitive nature of the information, IT IS ORDERED
that:
(1)
The Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order [#32] is GRANTED;
(2)
Defendant’s Opposing Motion To The Defendant Join And Stipulated Motion For
Protective Order is DENIED; and
(3)
This court will separately enter the Protective Order.

DATED: March 7, 2016