Hunt v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 25

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 23 Motion for Protective Order by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 02/17/2016.(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01968-REB-MEH
LARRY SCOTT HUNT,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 17, 2016.
Defendant American Family’s Motion for Protective Order [filed February 15, 2016; docket
#23] is denied without prejudice for the following reasons. First, the motion reflects a failure to
comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a), which states,
Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented party
shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any opposing
counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The moving party
shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific
efforts to fulfill this duty.
The motion does not fall under any exception listed in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(b). The Court reminds
the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a). See
Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1(a) requires
meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party
a single email, letter or voicemail).
Second, the motion and proposed order fail to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 10.1E. Third,
this Court is not governed by “C.R.C.P. 26(c),” and any protective order issued by this Court will
be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and all other applicable federal rules. Fourth, the proposed
order is not consistent with the court’s protective order delineated in Gillard v. Boulder Valley Sch.
Dist., 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), in which the court requires a specific mechanism by which
the parties may challenge the designation of information as confidential. See id. at 388-89.
Finally, if American Family or the parties choose to re-file a motion for protective order, they
shall provide the Court with a copy of the proposed order in useable format (Word, Word Perfect)

by emailing it to [e-mail].

2