Duncan v. Banks

Filing 34

ORDER denying without prejudice 32 Motion for Protective Order by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/08/2015.(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02104-MSK-MEH
TIM DUNCAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES BANKS,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 8, 2015.
The Joint Unopposed Motion for Protective Order [filed December 4, 2015; docket #32] is
denied without prejudice and the proposed protective order is refused for the following reasons.
First, any order concerning the restriction (“sealing”) of documents on the record shall comply with
D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.2. Second, any proposed protective order must be 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. See
id. at 388-89. Third, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over matters related to the proposed order
after the case has been closed.
The parties are reminded that, if they choose to re-file their motion in accordance with this
order, they shall also provide a copy of the proposed order to Chambers in useable format (Word,
Word Perfect).