Remund v. School District No. 14 in the County of Adams & State of Colorado et al

Filing 78

MINUTE ORDER withdrawing 53 Motion to Quash; denying as moot 56 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum; denying 58 Motion for Protective Order; granting 67 Defendant Adams County School District No. 14 9;s Motion to Withdraw Motion to Quash Subpoena; granting 69 Defendant Adams County School District No. 14's Motion for Court Order Rendering Court's Prior Minute Order 64 Moot; granting 71 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendant Adams County School District No. 14's Motions to Withdraw Motion to Quash, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/15/12.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02946-RBJ-MJW
BARBARA J. REMUND,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14 IN THE COUNTY OF ADAMS & STATE OF COLORADO,
RAY MONDRAGON, in his individual capacity, and
WESLEY PAXTON, in his individual capacity,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Response to
Defendant Adams County School District No. 14's Motions to Withdraw Motion to Quash
and for a Court Order Rendering Court’s Prior Minute Order (ECF No. 64) Moot (docket
no. 71) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Response and Objections to Defendant School
District’s Motion to Withdraw Defendants [sic] Motion to Quash and Request to Moot the
Court’s Order of 2/24/12 (docket no. 75) has been considered by the court.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Adams County School District No.
14's Motion to Withdraw Motion to Quash Subpoena (docket no. 67) is GRANTED
finding good cause shown. Defendant Adams County School District No. 14's Motion to
Quash Subpoena (docket no. 53) is WITHDRAWN. Defendant Adams County School
District No. 14 has provided to Plaintiff a copy of the subject Settlement Agreement
pursuant to the protective order previously entered into in this case. See paragraph 8
in docket no. 66.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Adams County School District No.
14's Motion for Court Order Rendering Court’s Prior Minute Order (ECF No. 64) Moot
(docket no. 69) is GRANTED, noting this court’s ruling above on Defendant Adams
County School District No. 14's Motion to Withdraw Motion to Quash Subpoena (docket
no. 67).
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with
Subpoena Duces Tecum (docket no. 56) is MOOT and therefore DENIED. Defendant
Adams County School District No. 14 has provided to Plaintiff a copy of the subject

2
Settlement Agreement pursuant to the protective order previously entered into in this
case. See paragraph 8 in docket no. 66.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Adams County School District No.
14's Motion for Protective Order (docket no. 58) is DENIED for the following reasons.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) states, in pertinent part, that for good
cause, a court may issue a protective order regarding discovery to protect a party or
person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
See also Rohrbough v. Harris, 549 F.3d 1313, 1321 (10th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) permits discovery only of relevant information, and the discovery
must appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010).
Here, I find that topics 9 and 10, in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Notice, are relevant
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). I further find that topics 9 and 10 are both reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Lastly, I find that the “last
five years” time frame [i.e., 2004-2009] for such information concerning topics 9 and 10
is relevant to Plaintiff’s theory of the case as outlined on pages 2 - 4 of the subject
motion (docket no. 58) and is not unduly burdensome.
Date: March 15, 2012