Bremer v. Association of Flight Attendants- CWA et al
MINUTE ORDER denying 40 Pro Se Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/2/2012.(ervsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02764-WJM-MJW
KARIN CHRISTINE BREMER,
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS - CWA, and
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.,
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the Pro Se Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order,
(docket no. 40) is DENIED for the following reasons.
First, the Pro Se Plaintiff has failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 A. Pro
Se litigants must “comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil . . . Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994).
The fact that a party is appearing pro se does not relieve that individual from the
obligation of complying with all applicable rules of the court. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d
1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (pro se plaintiffs are held to the same rules of procedure
which apply to other litigants); Hall v. Doering, 997 F. Supp. 1464, 1468 (D. Kan. 1998);
People v. Carter, 678 F. Supp. 1484, 1490 (D. Colo. 1986). It is not the proper function
of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Gibson v. City
of Cripple Creek, 48 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1995).
Second, the Pro Se Plaintiff seeks a protective order from this court against both
defendants for their “. . .continuance of a witch hunt and fishing expedition to this case.
The interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents I have turned over in the
last over five years on a continued basis and have always done everything in good faith
and open communications.” Here, I find that the Pro Se Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed in
this court on October 24, 2011. See docket no 1. Accordingly, a “witch hunt” as it
pertains to this case has not been going on for five years. Moreover, Defendants’
counsel, who is an officer of the court as attorney admitted to the bar of this court, has
stated in paragraph 3 in the Response (docket no. 55) the following: “To date, AFA has
not propounded discovery requests to Bremer.” Moreover, both the Pro Se Plaintiff and
Defendants are entitled to seek discovery consistent with the Rule 16 Scheduling Order
Docket no. 37).
Third, the Pro Se Plaintiff has failed to comply with D.C.COLO. LCivR 7.2 B in
that she has failed to identify any document or proceeding for which the restriction from
public access is sought. She has failed to identify the interest to be protected and why
such interest outweighs the presumption of public access. She has failed to identify a
clearly defined and serious injury that would result if access is not restricted. She has
failed to explain why no alternative to restricted access is practicable or why only
restricted access will protect her interests. Lastly, she has failed to identify the
restriction level sought. This court has previously denied the Pro Se Plaintiff’s Motion to
Restrict Excess [sic] [Access] for essentially the reasons stated above. See docket no.
Fourth, the Pro Se Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “good cause” for a
protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) and Exum v. United States Olympic Comm.,
209 F.R.D. 201, 206 (D. Colo. 2002).
Date: May 2, 2012
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?