Hicks v. Cadle Company, et al

Filing 428

ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion To Hold Daniel C. Cadle In Contempt 418 is DENIED. By Judge Zita L. Weinshienk on 06/23/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Zita L. Weinshienk Civil Action No. 04-cv-02616-ZLW-CBS KERRY R. HICKS, Plaintiff, v. THE CADLE COMPANY, BUCKEYE RETIREMENT CO., LLC, LTD., WILLIAM E. SHAULIS, and DANIEL C. CADLE, Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________
ORDER _____________________________________________________________________

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion To Hold Daniel C. Cadle In Contempt (Doc. No. 418). The Court has reviewed carefully the moving and responding papers and the applicable legal authority. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Hold Daniel C. Cadle In Contempt (Doc. No. 418) is denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court hereby clarifies that the portion of the Court's Order of July 11, 2005 (Doc. No. 50) which ordered that "Defendants Daniel C. Cadle, William E. Shaulis, and representatives of Defendants The Cadle Company and Buckeye Retirement Co., LLC, LTD., shall not have communications, orally or in writing, including by email or telephone, with . . . Plaintiff's counsel unless it is a communication approved by counsel or unless they are pro se," means that Defendants shall not have

any communication with any attorney representing Plaintiff on any matter, in any jurisdiction, unless the communication is approved by counsel or unless the Defendant is pro se. DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 23rd day of June, 2010. BY THE COURT:

________________________________ ZITA LEESON WEINSHIENK, Senior Judge United States District Court

2