reFX AUDIO SOFTWARE INC. v. Does 1-123

Filing 24

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 19 Motion for Protective Order Regarding Subpoena by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 04/16/13.(jjhsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-03146-WYD-MEH reFX AUDIO SOFTWARE INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 1-123, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 16, 2013. The Motion of Defendant Doe No. 831 for Protective Order Regarding Subpoena [filed April 15, 2013; docket #19] is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, which states, The court 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 or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter. The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule. (emphasis added). The Court reminds the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003) (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). 1 Here, Defendant Doe No. 83 is represented by counsel; thus, there are no confidentiality issues affecting Local Rule 7.1A’s requirement for conferral.

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?