State Regulatory Registry LLC v. Bartholomew et al

Filing 166

ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/24/2023, re: 165 Joint Motion to Reopen Case for Limited Purpose of Clarifying Agreed Permanent Injunction and Protective Order is DENIED. (jtorr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 17-cv-01834-PAB-NRN
STATE REGULATORY REGISTRY, LLC, a Washington, D.C. limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
BILLY GLENN BARTHOLOMEW, an individual,
MTI SERVICES CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation,
CAREY GREEN, an individual, and
DONALD B. EXLEY,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Reopen Case for Limited
Purpose of Clarifying Agreed Permanent Injunction and Protective Order [Docket No.
165] filed by plaintiff and defendant Billy Glen Bartholomew (“Bartholomew”)
(collectively “movants”). Movants request that the Court reopen this case to clarify the
scope of a permanent injunction and a protective order that were entered in this case.
Id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 1-3.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2017, plaintiff State Regulatory Registry, LLC filed this action against
defendants Bartholomew, MTI Services Corporation (“MTI”), and Carey Green
(“Green”), bringing claims of copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement,
common law misappropriation of trade secrets, federal misappropriation of trade
secrets, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract. Docket No. 1 at 19-

30, ¶¶ 77-151. On October 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe entered a
protective order that the parties jointly requested regarding certain confidential
documents. Docket No. 32; Docket No. 33. On June 12, 2019, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint adding defendant Donald B. Exley (“Exley”). Docket No. 132 at 1.
On October 22, 2019, plaintiff filed a stipulation dismissing its claims against MTI
and Exley and requesting that the Court enter a permanent injunction binding MTI and
Exley pursuant to a settlement agreement. Docket No. 145 at 1. On November 5,
2019, the Court ordered the parties to clarify whether the Court would retain jurisdiction
over the settlement and permanent injunction. Docket No. 153. On November 12,
2019, plaintiff, MTI, and Exley filed a new request for entry of a permanent injunction
without reference to the Court retaining jurisdiction over the settlement. Docket No. 156
at 1. On November 14, 2019, plaintiff and Green filed a stipulation dismissing all of
plaintiff’s claims against Green and requesting that the Court enter a permanent
injunction binding Green pursuant to a settlement agreement. Docket No. 157 at 1;
Docket No. 157-1 at 6. On November 18, 2019, plaintiff and Bartholomew filed a
stipulation dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims against Bartholomew and requesting that
the Court enter a permanent injunction binding Bartholomew. Docket No. 160; Docket
No. 160-1 at 1.
On November 20, 2019, the Court entered permanent injunctions against each
defendant and dismissed the claims in this case. Docket Nos. 162, 163, 164. On April
27, 2022, movants requested that the Court reopen this case and clarify the scope of
the Court’s protective order and permanent injunction against Bartholomew. Docket No.
165 at 1.

2

The parties state that a third party has initiated state administrative proceedings
against Bartholomew. Id. at 4. Bartholomew and the third party wish to use documents
in the administrative proceedings that were designated as confidential under the
protective order and documents which Bartholomew is enjoined from reproducing or
displaying by the permanent injunction that the Court entered against him in 2019. Id.
at 5. Plaintiff does not object to the use of the documents and has provided its written
consent to the use of the documents in the proceeding. Id. at 2. Bartholomew states
that he “wishes to avoid any risk of violating this Court’s two Orders.” Id. The parties do
not seek to modify the permanent injunction, but instead seek to clarify that
Bartholomew’s use and use by the third party of certain documents does not violate the
Court’s orders. Id. at 6-7.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 60(b) states that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment under
certain limited circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) relief is “extraordinary
and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” The Servants of the Paraclete
v. John Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000).
Under Rule 60(b)(6), a court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Rule
60(b)(6) has been described as a “grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a
particular case.” Pierce v. Cook & Co., Inc., 518 F.2d 720, 722 (10th Cir. 1975) (en
banc) (citation omitted). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is appropriate when circumstances
are so “unusual or compelling” that extraordinary relief is warranted or when it “offends
justice” to deny such relief. Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 580 (10th

3

Cir. 1996). Courts have granted relief under Rule 60(b)(6) “when, after entry of
judgment, events not contemplated by the moving party render enforcement of the
judgment inequitable,” where a party is indigent, or when it offends justice to deny such
relief. Id. at 579.
III. ANALYSIS
The parties move for clarification of the Court’s order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6),
but do not explain why this case is covered by Rule 60 and do not explain why this case
falls under the extraordinary circumstances described by Rule 60(b)(6). See Docket No
165 at 1-2, 6-7. Although the Court “‘has substantial discretion in connection with a
Rule 60(b) motion’. . . it is an abuse of discretion to grant relief where no basis for that
relief exists.” Cashner, 98 F.3d at 580 (quoting Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d
1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 1990)).
Movants do not identify why clarification of prior orders constitutes the relief from
final judgment contemplated by Rule 60. Docket No. 165 at 1-2. Additionally, the
parties make no showing of extraordinary circumstances. Id. The parties state that
plaintiff and Bartholomew agree on the application of the Court’s prior orders to the
present circumstances. Id. at 2. Bartholomew, however, “wishes to avoid any risk of
violating this Court’s [] Orders.” Id. The parties have not shown that there is any
controversy over the application of the Court’s orders that requires the Court’s
intervention, and the Court will decline to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) without a
showing that it would offend justice to deny such relief. Moreover, the Court finds no
reason to reopen this case.

4

Ultimately, however, movants’ request for clarification, as opposed to any request
for modification of existing orders, does not appear to implicate Rule 60. While it is not
clear to the Court why the parties do not possess the ability to remove obligations
imposed by the protective order through agreement by the Designating Party, see
Docket No. 33 at 8, ¶ 19, the Court has nevertheless reviewed the protective order and
the permanent injunction order, Docket No. 164, in reference to the joint motion and
agrees with the parties that (a) the permanent injunction order does not preclude
Bartholomew from reviewing and providing testimony regarding plaintiff’s copyrighted
SAFE MLO Test questions, his role and participation as a subject matter expert on
plaintiff’s exam development committees, his involvement in the processes and
procedures plaintiff utilized to develop and maintain the SAFE MLO Test, or any other
topic relevant to the State Administrative Proceedings; and (b) the protective order,
Docket No. 33, does not prohibit either the Colorado Board or Bartholomew from using,
reviewing or testifying regarding documents that were designated by plaintiff as
“CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to the terms of this Court’s protective order in the state
administrative proceedings.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is

5

ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Reopen Case for Limited Purpose of
Clarifying Agreed Permanent Injunction and Protective Order [Docket No. 165] is
DENIED.
DATED March 24, 2023.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge

6