Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robertson v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation District

United States District Court, D. Colorado

March 10, 2014

APRIL ROBERTSON, Plaintiff,
v.
METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT, Defendant.

John W. McKendree, Esq., Offices of John W. McKendree, Lawyer and Consultant, Thornton, CO, Attorney for Plaintiff.

J. Andrew Nathan, Marni Nathan Kloster, NATHAN, BREMER, DUMM & MYERS, P.C., Denver, CO, Attorneys for Defendant.

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff April Robertson and Defendant Metro Wastewater Reclamation District by and through their undersigned counsel, have stipulated to the terms of this Order. Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or information that will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing discovery in this case, IT IS ORDERED:

RECITALS & THRESHOLD GOOD CAUSE SHOWING

1. Plaintiff has sued Defendant for a violation of her rights under the Title VII, 42 U.S.C. ยง20000e for religious discrimination and retaliation. Defendant denies all liability on these claims.

2. Given the nature of the case, there is good cause to believe that discovery may involve the disclosure of confidential information, with possible personally identifiable information about current and former employees of the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, personnel records of other current and former employees of the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, as well as medical records, among other things, all of which normally are required to be maintained confidentially. A blanket protective order therefore is appropriate in this case, and a document-by-document showing is not required. See Gillard v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist. Re-2, 196 F.R.D. 382, 386 (D. Colo. 2000).

3. Based on these recitals and the terms of disclosure that follow, the Parties have agreed to this Stipulated Protective Order to facilitate the efficient production of information that the producing party may claim in good faith is entitled to confidential treatment, while at the same time protecting the Parties' interests in the confidential treatment of that information and the full and fair disclosure of discoverable information in this action.

DEFINITIONS AND TERMS

1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. As used in this Protective Order, "document" is defined as provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term.

3. Information designated "Confidential" shall be information that is deemed by the parties after a good-faith review to be confidential in that it implicates common law and/or statutory privacy interests, for instance, of (a) current or former Metro Wastewater Reclamation District employees, and/or (b) Plaintiff. Confidential information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case.

4. Any party to this action, after a good-faith review and determination that a document or other material contains confidential information, may designate that document or material as "Confidential" after entry of this Order by conspicuously stamping or labeling the document or material with the word "Confidential" or "Subject to Protective Order". Documents or material produced by either party shall not be treated as confidential pursuant to this Order unless they are stamped or labeled in such a fashion except as provided in this Order. The inadvertent failure to designate material as "Confidential" does not preclude a party from subsequently making such a designation in good faith, and, in that case, the material is treated as confidential only after being properly designated.

a. Parties to this action may in good faith designate deposition testimony as "Confidential" by advising opposing counsel of record, in writing, within 21 days after receipt of a copy of the transcript, or such other time period as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties, of the pages and lines of the deposition which the party believes in good faith are confidential. Alternatively, any party may, on the record at the deposition, designate deposition testimony as Confidential by advising ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.