Malibu Media v. John Does 1-42

Filing 88

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 80 Doe #22's Motion for Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/27/2012. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN BATZ,
TARA W. CAMERON, and
JOHN DOES 1-2, 5, 7, 9-11, 15-38, and 40-42,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 27, 2012.
Doe #22's Motion for Protective Order [filed November 23, 2012; docket #80] is denied
without prejudice for failure to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. The Court reminds the
parties that it “will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56,
unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or
made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel.” D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A
(emphasis added). Because Rule 7.1A requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is
not satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail. See Hoelzel v.
First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003). Doe #22's Certificate of Compliance with
D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1 [filed under Restriction Level 2 at docket #81] represents that Doe #22 sent
Plaintiff’s counsel a single email, which does not constitute a good-faith effort to confer prior to
seeking relief from the Court.