Vester v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C.

Filing 60

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is denied, with the exception that part of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) of Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) notice dated 01/21/09 relating to all matters identified from information obtained during litigation of this case and Mesa County Court cases 07C3487 and 07C3488, which does not meet the "particularity" requirement of Rule 30(b)(6). The Court finds that the balance of Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is neither facially over broad nor unduly burdensome, by Magistrate Judge Laird T. Milburn on 03/02/09.(wjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U.S. Magistrate Judge Laird T. Milburn Civil Action No. 08-cv-01957-MSK-LTM KEN W. VESTER, Plaintiff, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Defendant. ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (docket # 53) Having considered the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (docket # 53) and Plaintiff's Response thereto and being aware of the requirements contained in both Rules 30 and 37, and the other rules pertaining to discovery, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (docket # 53) is DENIED, with the exception that part of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) of Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) notice dated January 21, 2009 relating to all matters identified from information obtained during litigation of this case and Mesa County Court cases 07C3487 and 07C3488, which does not meet the "particularity" requirement of Rule 30(b)(6).

Otherwise, the Court finds that the balance of Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (docket # 53) is neither facially over broad nor unduly burdensome. DATED: March 02, 2009 at Grand Junction, Colorado. BY THE COURT: s/Laird T. Milburn Laird T. Milburn United States Magistrate Judge

2