Chevron Corporation v. Salazar
Filing
16
ORDER. The Amended Motion for Protective Order filed by Non-Party Douglas Beltman 4 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and grant Mr. Beltman leave to re-file consistent with any action taken concerning the underlying litigation. Any delay in re-filing the motion caused by the Second Circuits stay of the underlying litigation will not affect the Courts consideration of timeliness pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3). By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/29/2011.(sah, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02426-REB-MEH
CHEVRON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIA AGUINDA SALAZAR,
Defendant.
DOUGLAS BELTMAN,
Movant.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is an Amended Motion for Protective Order filed by Non-Party Douglas
Beltman [filed September 16, 2011; docket #4]. On September 20, 2011, Mr. Beltman filed a Notice
of Stay informing the Court that the litigation underlying this matter had been stayed by the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals. Accordingly, this Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties
seeking their positions on the impact of such stay on the current matter. The parties timely filed
supplemental briefs with the Court on September 28, 2011. According to the briefs, the parties agree
that this matter should be held in abeyance until the Second Circuit’s stay is lifted or modified, or
until the discovery in the underlying action is otherwise authorized. See docket #14 at 3-4; docket
#15 at 2.
Rather than impose an indefinite stay on this proceeding,1 the Court will deny the motion
1
An indefinite stay of proceedings is generally disfavored in this District. See Chavez v.
Young Am. Ins. Co., No. 06-2419, 2007 WL 683973, *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2007).
without prejudice and grant Mr. Beltman leave to re-file consistent with any action taken concerning
the underlying litigation. Any delay in re-filing the motion caused by the Second Circuit’s stay of
the underlying litigation will not affect the Court’s consideration of timeliness pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(c)(3).
Dated and ordered at Denver, Colorado, this 29th day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?