Garcia v. Patton et al
Filing
171
MINUTE ORDER denying 137 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Forensic Interview of Minor), by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/15/2015.(emill)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01568-RM-MJW
REGINA GARCIA as Parent and Next Friend to T.D., a minor,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
KELCEY PATTON and
THE DENVER DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Forensic Interview of
Minor) (docket no.137) is DENIED for the following reasons. Each party shall pay their
own attorney fees and costs for this motion.
On November 12, 2014, this court GRANTED the Non-Party City of Wheat Ridge’s
Motion to Quash Subpoena, or in the Alternative, Request for an In Camera Review and
Protective Order (docket no. 61). See Minute Order (docket no. 81). Plaintiff did not file
any objections to this Minute Order (docket no. 81) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Instead, Plaintiff has waited roughly six months to file the subject motion (docket no. 137).
This court agrees with the Non-Party City of Wheat Ridge that the subject motion (docket
no. 137) is procedurally improper and is an attempt by Plaintiff to circumvent this court’s
Minute Order (docket no. 81) which is law of this case on this disputed area of discovery.
A party’s failure to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s ruling precludes
further review of the issue by the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Hill v. SmithKline
Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1114 (10th Cir. 2004) (“If the parties fail to make a timely
objection, they “waive [ ] appellate review of both factual and legal questions.”). Here,
nothing prevented Plaintiff from timely filing objections consistent with Rule 72 (a) to this
court’s Minute Order (docket no. 81). Simply put, Plaintiff failed to do so. Filing of Rule
72(a) objections was the proper procedure for Plaintiff to follow in order to seek the relief
that is being sought in the subject motion (docket no. 137). Moreover, it is clear from the
Response (docket no. 161) that the criminal investigation remains active. See exhibit A
(Sgt. J.D. Jepkema’s Affidavit) attached to Response (docket no. 161). For these reasons,
the subject motion (docket no. 137) should be denied.
Date: June 15, 2015
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?