IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11BcvB02712BREBBKMT

LEROY DAMASIO FRESQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SHERIFF TED MINKS, 

MICHAEL FISH, Detention Service Manager,

JOHN DOE (CAPTAIN), March 5, 2010,

LT. MARTINALLI,

LT. G. GITTIN,

LT. J. LUCAS,

ADMINISTRATIVE SGT. RENFRO,

SGT. TROY BETKA,

SGT. SCOTT HAPP,

SGT. STEVEN WYGANT,

OFFICER KATHRINE FEROE,

DEPUTY SHERIFF CRUMBAKER,

DEPUTY SHERIFF RYAN VIERS,

DEPUTY SHERIFF DUSTIN DYELING,

DEPUTY SHERIFF ANTHONY KOTRIS,

DEPUTY SHERIFF DONALD SPRINGFIELD,

DEPUTY SHERIFF HOLLEY,

DEPUTY SHERIFF JAMES GELEUDE,

DEPUTY SHERIFF JASON RICHARDSON,

DEPUTY SHERIFF REID PERRY,

DEPUTY SHERIFF WILLIAM BOHM,

DEPUTY SHERIFF ERIK BOUGHAM,

DEPUTY SHERIFF HERBERT LONGSHORE,

DEPUTY SHERIFF #1958 (Name Unknown),

COUNSELOR MIKE COLLINS,

COUNSELOR SUPERVISOR DEBRA ELUDO,

CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT,

CLAUDIA VAN BUREN/HSA,

RAYMOND HERR, Responsible Physician,

TRACY HAINES, LPN, and

Case 1:11-cv-02712-REB-KMT Document 172 Filed 10/21/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
KATHERINE BECERRA, RN,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

This matter is before the court on the “Unopposed Motion for Protective Order” (Doc. No. 170, 

filed Oct. 20, 2014.) The Motion is DENIED and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED. 

The parties are granted leave to submit a motion for protective order and revised form of protective 

order consistent with the comments contained here.

First, Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), set out certain 

requirements for the issuance of a blanket protective order such as the one sought here. Among 

other things, any information designated by a party as confidential must first be reviewed by a 

lawyer who will certify that the designation as confidential is “based on a good faith belief that [the 

information] is confidential or otherwise entitled to protection.” Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386.

In addition, the protective order must contain a mechanism by which a party may challenge the 

designation of information as confidential. The following language would satisfy this provision:

A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL information 

by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information. The 

written notice shall identify the information to which the objection is made. If the

parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days after the time the 

notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the party designating the information 

as CONFIDENTIAL to file an appropriate motion requesting that the court 

determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this 

Protective Order. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed information shall be 

treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective Order until the 

Court rules on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a motion within 

the prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as 

CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in 

accordance with this Protective Order. In connection with a motion filed under this 

provision, the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the 

burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed information to be 

treated as CONFIDENTIAL.

Id. at 388-89. The proposed Protective Order does not comply with the requirements established 

in Gillard. 

Second, the court disagrees with the procedure outlined in paragraph 12 of the parties’ proposed 

2

Case 1:11-cv-02712-REB-KMT Document 172 Filed 10/21/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Protective Order. Instead, when a party need to file materials that have been designated by the 

opposing party as “Confidential,” he or she should notify the opposing party that the

“Confidential” document(s) will be filed and then file them under the appropriate level of 

restriction. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(e), the party that has designated the materials as 

“Confidential” will have 14 days to file a motion to restrict those underlying materials, which must 

fully comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(c). 

Finally, the parties have improperly combined their Motion for Protective Order and proposed 

Protective Order into a single document. If and when the parties renew their motion for a 

protective order, they shall file a motion for protective order with separate proposed protective 

order filed as an attachment thereto. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 170) is DENIED 

without prejudice, and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED. 

Dated: October 21, 2014

3

Case 1:11-cv-02712-REB-KMT Document 172 Filed 10/21/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3