Aurora Bank FSB v. Shea Mortgage Inc.
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/7/13.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02752-PAB-KLM
AURORA BANK FSB, a Federal Saving Bank,
SHEA MORTGAGE INC., a California Corporation,
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [Docket
No. 17; Filed February 6, 2013] (the “Motion”). Pursuant to its Local Rule 7.1A. conferral
obligation, Plaintiff states that Defendant “intends to oppose certain categories of
documents as being treated as confidential under the Protective Order (e.g., [Plaintiff’s]
business records), but does not oppose the applicability of a Protective Order for other
documents (e.g., borrowers’ private loan information).” Motion [#17] at 1. It is unclear to
the Court that both parties seek entry of the proposed Protective Order tendered with the
Although a Scheduling Conference in this matter will not be held until April 22, 2013,
the Court made the parties aware of its procedure for handling contested discovery motions
in the Order Setting Scheduling/Planning Conference. See Order [#7] § E.1. The parties
have not followed this procedure in connection with the present dispute. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#17] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither party shall file a contested discovery motion
until after complying with the steps for following the Magistrate Judge’s discovery dispute
procedure, as stated below:
Counsel meaningfully confer regarding one or more discovery disputes
pursuant to Local Rule 7.1A. Counsel may choose to confer about only one
dispute at a time or several disputes at once. This decision is up to counsel,
not the Court.
If discovery disputes are not resolved, counsel then agree on a mutually
convenient time to call the Court for a discovery hearing regarding all
disputes about which they have fully conferred but failed to reach agreement.
No attorney can insist on contacting the Court for a discovery hearing at a
time when another attorney is not available. If an attorney is not available for
a conference call to the Court for a discovery hearing when contacted by
opposing counsel, s/he must provide opposing counsel with alternate dates
and times to contact the Court. This eliminates the possibility that one party
will have an unfair advantage over another in preparation for a discovery
The Court is not responsible for assuring that multiple counsel for the same
party are on the line for a telephone hearing. The Court requires only one
attorney of record on the line for each party involved in the dispute. If counsel
for a party want co-counsel for the same party to participate in the telephone
hearing, they are responsible for ensuring that co-counsel are available to
participate on the date and time chosen by them for the hearing.
The Court will not continue hearings based on the sudden unavailability of
co-counsel for a party. As long as each party involved in the dispute is
represented by at least one attorney of record, the hearing will proceed.
When counsel call the Court for the discovery hearing, the judge’s law
clerks will ask counsel questions relating to the nature of the dispute. The
law clerks will consult with the judge as necessary. If the judge determines
that any documents are required for review prior to the hearing, counsel
will be instructed to email such documents to the Court’s chambers, and
the hearing will be set at a mutually convenient date and time in the future.
If no documents are necessary for review and the judge is immediately
available, the call will be transferred to the courtroom and the hearing will
be conducted. If the judge determines that the matter is complex and
briefing is required, the judge will set a briefing schedule. If the judge is
not immediately available, the hearing will be set at a mutually convenient
date and time in the future.
Filing a disputed discovery motion without permission from the
court will result in the motion being stricken, and may result in the
imposition of sanctions. To the extent that these procedures conflict
with the Local Rules of the Court, these procedures take priority over
the Local Rules.
Dated: February 7, 2013
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?