Doe et al v. McAfee et al

Filing 122

MINUTE ORDER denying 118 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Compel. The parties are to brief plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order 117 in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/7/2015.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01287-MSK-MJW
JOHN DOE,
JANE DOE,
E.C., by her parents and next friends,
E.S.C., by his parents and next friends, and
J.C., by his parents and next friends,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOANNA MCAFEE,
LISA LITTLE,
JOEY HARRIS,
MITCHELL MIHALKO, and
CHAD HAYNES,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Docket No. 118) is DENIED for the following
reasons.
First, the Court notes that Plaintiffs concurrently filed an objection under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a) relating to the same order. (Docket No. 119.) (CM/ECF’s time stamps
show that the objection was filed 12 minutes after the motion for reconsideration.) The
objection and the motion for reconsideration are duplicative.
Second, the Court sees no sufficient grounds for reconsideration. The Does
argue that the facts have changed inasmuch as they “have decided to drop their portion
of this lawsuit rather than be compelled to enter the state for a deposition where they
believe the risk of further retaliation is very real.” (Docket No. 118, p.2.) But no Rule
41(a) motion has been filed to dismiss the Doe plaintiffs, so this supposed change in
facts does not actually exist yet. Moreover, throughout their motion, the Doe plaintiffs
suggest that they’d really prefer not to take this step, thereby suggesting that they
intend not to do so if the motion for reconsideration is granted. (See e.g., Docket No.
118 p.6 (“manifest justice will occur if John and Jain Doe are required to choose”
(emphasis added)).) Finally, the Doe plaintiffs would remain critical fact witnesses (and

the prosecuting next friends) for the claims brought by their teen-age children, and
would therefore almost certainly need to be deposed anyway. Thus, this purported
change in facts would not make a material difference.
Third, the Doe plaintiffs suggest that the facts have changed, and now warrant a
different result, because the defendants have noticed depositions for the three teen-age
plaintiffs (thereby allegedly raising the risk of harassment). These depositions are the
subject of plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 117), and the Court
believes the attendant risks are more appropriately addressed in the context of that
motion. The parties are hereby ORDERED to brief plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order
(Docket No. 117) in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).

Date: May 7, 2015