RABITO v. ACCORDANT HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, 13-cv-03271-MSK-BNB. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20140414780
Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2014
Summary: ORDER BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before me on the parties' Joint Motion for the Entry of a Stipulated Order of Confidentiality [Doc. # 25, filed 4/7/2014] (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED and the proposed Order of Confidentiality is REJECTED. The parties are granted leave to submit a revised motion and draft order consistent with the comments contained here. In Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District , 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), I set out certain requiremen
Summary: ORDER BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before me on the parties' Joint Motion for the Entry of a Stipulated Order of Confidentiality [Doc. # 25, filed 4/7/2014] (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED and the proposed Order of Confidentiality is REJECTED. The parties are granted leave to submit a revised motion and draft order consistent with the comments contained here. In Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District , 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), I set out certain requirement..
More
ORDER
BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before me on the parties' Joint Motion for the Entry of a Stipulated Order of Confidentiality [Doc. # 25, filed 4/7/2014] (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED and the proposed Order of Confidentiality is REJECTED. The parties are granted leave to submit a revised motion and draft order consistent with the comments contained here.
In Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), I set out certain requirements for the issuance of a blanket protective order such as the one sought here. Among other things, I require that any information designated by a party as confidential must first be reviewed by a lawyer and that the designation as confidential must be "based on a good faith belief that [the information] is confidential or otherwise entitled to protection" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386. In addition, I require that the protective order contain a mechanism by which a party may challenge the designation of information as privileged. The addendum to the Gillard decision is a preferred form of protective order. The draft order does not comply with the requirements of Gillard.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion [Doc. # 25] is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
