1-1700-9881-2

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

Jeannette Nelson,                              Complainant,   vs.   Nekton, Inc.,                               Respondent.

PROTECTIVE ORDER

            On October 13, 1995, Respondent Nekton, Inc. sought a Protective Order, covering any answers Respondent shall give to Complainant’s Interrogatories No. 5 (1st Set) and No. 1 (2nd Set) and any documents reflecting disciplinary action against Respondent’s supervisory personnel.

            Louis M. Furlong, Jr., Esq., One Griggs Midway, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota  55104, sought the order ex parte, via fax transmission, a copy of which was provided to Howard Bolter, Esq., 45 Northstar East, 608 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota  55402, via fax.  Mr. Furlong sought to advise Mr. Bolter by phone and has left a message in detail about this order sought.  Mr. Bolter was unavailable.  Mr. Furlong sought to expedite getting an order because of the limited time left for Respondent to comply.

            The Administrative Law Judge had stated in its Order of October 13, 1995, that a Protective Order could be suggested by Respondent in order to protect the privacy interests of Respondent’s employees and former employees. 

            Based on the Memoranda filed by the parties, all the filings in this case, and for reasons set out above:

 

 

 

 

            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

            1.         Answers given by Respondent to Complainant’s Interrogatories No. 5 (1st Set) and No. 1 (2nd Set) and any documents reflecting information about disciplinary action against Respondent’s supervisor personnel are covered by this Protective Order.

            2.         Any information covered by this Protective Order shall be not disclosed in any manner or form to any person other than Respondent, its attorney, Louis Furlong, Complainant, Complainant’s attorney, and Administrative Law Judge George Beck.

            3.         The information covered by this Protective Order may be used only in connection with this contested case proceeding and for no other purpose.

            4.         The Complainant must return all copies of the information covered by this Order to the Respondent’s attorney at the close of this contested case proceeding.

            5.         After receiving information covered by this Protective Order, counsel for Complainant may bring a motion, requesting the ALJ to remove or modify the Protective Order as it pertains to any information covered.

Dated this 16th day of October, 1995

 

                                                                             

GEORGE A. BECK

Administrative Law Judge