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.

Montemayor v. City of Colorado Springs

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 10, 2016

AMARO MONTEMAYOR, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, DAVID LETHBRIDGE, in his individual capacity, and COREY FARKAS, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

William S. Finger Finger & Newcomb, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff.

Lindsay Rose Tracy Lessig Office of the City Attorney Attorneys for Defendants.

PROTECTIVE ORDER

MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Upon consideration of the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Protective Order, and it appearing to the Court that good cause exists under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) for the issuance of a Protective Order, it is ORDERED as follows:

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 confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests, including without limitation, personnel and/or payroll records of current or former employees of Defendant City of Colorado Springs or the Plaintiff; personal, medical, financial, or other information protected by law; operations or business data, plans, analyses, or other information implicating public safety not generally known to the public; and trade secrets or other confidential and proprietary business information entitled to protection under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(G). CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case.

4. Any information to be designated by a party as CONFIDENTIAL must first be reviewed by the party’s counsel and be determined, in good faith, to be subject to protection as confidential under the terms of this Protective Order, as described in paragraph 3 above, before being marked CONFIDENTIAL. The party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall prepare a log identifying by Bates Number each document designated as CONFIDENTIAL and stating by Bates Number the specific basis or bases relied on by the party for designating the information CONFIDENTIAL. The required “confidentiality log” shall accompany the production of any information designated CONFIDENTIAL.

5. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively “CONFIDENTIAL information”) shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed to:

(A) attorneys actively working on this case;
(B) persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on the case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case;
(C) the parties, including designated representatives for the entity defendant;
(D) expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, ...

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.