reFX AUDIO SOFTWARE INC. v. Does 1-123
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 19 Motion for Protective Order Regarding Subpoena by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 04/16/13.(jjhsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03146-WYD-MEH
reFX AUDIO SOFTWARE INC.,
JOHN DOES 1-123,
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).
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?