As referenced above, the only item in dispute was the scope of what would bedefined as Confidential information
i.e., whether or not
all information disclosed by theTiZA Defendants
would be designated as Confidential. The TiZA Defendants sought thisprotection for good cause as result of repeated threats of brutal violence against TiZA andits teachers, students and staff. Despite these threats, the ACLU and CommissionerSeagren disagreed, stipulating only to inadequate protection for TiZA.On December 28, 2009, Magistrate Judge Graham issued the Protective Order[Doc. # 160].
The Order failed to incorporate the TiZA Defendants’ requested
protection, and instead directed each disclosing party to initially determine whatdisclosed information should be protected as confidential. (
Protective Order ¶ 1.)Further,
by all parties in recognition of the public parties’
compulsory state law obligations
, the Court removed the Minnesota Government DataPractices Act (DPA) as a classification
ProtectiveOrder ¶ 1.) The Court further removed
a stipulated provision
permitting disclosure of information that is
“not public” under the DPA.
Protective Order ¶ 2.)Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, the TiZA Defendants submit these timely Objectionsto the District Court.
OBJECTIONSI. Standard of Review
“The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge’s order on a
dispositive issue is extremely deferential.”
Dochniak v. Dominium Management Services, Inc.
, 240 F.R.D. 451, 452 (D. Minn. 2006) (
Reko v. Creative
Case 0:09-cv-00138-DWF-JJG Document 161 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 8