Bremer v. Association of Flight Attendants- CWA et al

Filing 66

MINUTE ORDER denying 57 Motion for Protective Order; denying 57 Motion for Leave to Restrict ; denying 58 Motion for Protective Order; denying 58 Motion for Leave to Restrict for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A and 7.2B, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/23/2012.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02764-WJM-MJW
KARIN CHRISTINE BREMER,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS - CWA, and
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the Pro Se Plaintiff’s Motion of Protective Order and
Motion to Restrict Access (docket no. 57) and the Pro Se Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective
Order and Motion to Restrict Access (docket no. 58) are both DENIED for failure to
comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A and 7.2B and further because the Pro Se Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate “good cause” as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and
under Exum v. United States Olympic Comm., 209 F.R.D. 201, 206 (D. Colo. 2002).
Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for these above two motions.
Pro Se litigants must “comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil . . . Procedure.” Odgen 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).
Date:

May 23, 2012