Independence Institute, The et al v. Buescher

Filing 383

MINUTE ORDER. Defendant's 371 Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and Expedited Ruling and/or Hearing Re: the Relief Requested Herein. Defendant shall file a supplement to 380 Defendant's Second Motion for Pr otective Order on or before 5/20/2013 in conformity which D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1. Plaintiffs shall file a response to the Motion on or before 5/24/2013, and Defendant may file a reply in support of the Motion no later than 5/29/2013. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/17/13.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00609-PAB-MEH
THE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE,
JON CALDARA,
DENNIS POLHILL,
MASON TVERT,
RUSSELL HAAS,
DOUGLAS CAMPBELL,
LOUIS SCHROEDER,
SCOTT LAMM,
DANIEL KENNEDY, and
ALBIE HURST,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCOTT GESSLER, in his official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 17, 2013.
Pending before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(c) and Expedited Ruling and/or Hearing Re: the Relief Requested Herein [filed April 16,
2013; docket #371] (“Motion I”) and Defendant’s Second Motion for Protective Order [docket #380]
(“Motion II”). The Court held a hearing on Motion I on April 17, 2013, during which Plaintiffs
agreed to withdraw their Colorado Open Records Act (“CORA”) requests and tender traditional
discovery requests under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court suggested that Plaintiffs
move to extend the deadline for filing a fee petition, which Plaintiffs did on April 22, 2013. Upon
referral from Judge Brimmer, the Court granted the motion for extension and continued the deadline
through and including July 1, 2013. (Docket #377.)
In declining to issue a decision on Motion I during the hearing, the Court noted it would
construe Motion I as though it pertained to a discovery request under the Federal Rules. The Court
believed Plaintiffs would file a response to Motion I; however, as of this date, they have not done
so. Instead, Defendant submitted Motion II on May 15, 2013, seeking protection of what appear to
be the same category of documents.
In light of the apparently overlapping discovery requests, Plaintiffs’ failure to file a timely
response to Motion I, and Defendant’s failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1, which
requires all motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 to “set forth in the text of the motion the specific

interrogatory, request, or response to which the motion is directed,” or to attach “an exhibit that
contains the interrogatory, request, or response,” Motion I is denied as moot. Defendant shall file
a supplement to Motion II on or before May 20, 2013 in conformity which D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1.
Plaintiffs shall file a response to Motion II on or before May 24, 2013, and Defendant may file a
reply in support of Motion II no later than May 29, 2013.

2