Everhart v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 75

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/4/15 re: Joint Motion for Modification of Protective Order 73 . The Motion is DENIED without prejudice; and The parties may submit a revised form of protective order, similar in form to the Protective Order 40 previously entered, but which is mutual in its scope. (bsimm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00694-WYD-BNB
RICHARD EVERHART,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the parties’ Joint Motion for Modification of Protective Order
[Doc. # 73, filed 1/26/2015] (the “Motion”), which is DENIED without prejudice.
I previously entered a blanket protective order [Doc. # 40], drafted by the parties, which
protects from public disclosure documents and information disclosed in discovery by the
defendant. The Motion appears to seek to make that protective order mutual so that it may be
invoked by the plaintiff. Rather than submitting a revised protective order which is phrased in
mutual terms, however, the parties have affixed to the end of the Motion a signature block which
states “SO ORDERED” and provides a place for my signature. This is improper. See
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(g).
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Motion [Doc. # 73] is DENIED without prejudice; and

(2)

The parties may submit a revised form of protective order, similar in form to the

Protective Order [Doc. # 40] previously entered, but which is mutual in its scope.

Dated February 4, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2