Cote et al v. Hopp et al

Filing 98

ORDER denying 76 Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and/or Temporary Restraining Order/Permanent Injunction; and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations 88 in its entirety. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/20/2011. (RK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 20 July, 2011 03:25:14 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EVELYN COTE and ALFRED COTE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TOM HOPP, SARAH HOUSTON, SCOTT )
COWSER, DAN LEEZER, JAMES
)
DROZDZ, BRIAN HUNTER, JANE DOE, )
JOHN DOE,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 09-01060

ORDER
On June 24, 2011, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G.
Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the filing
of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v.
Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections,
any such objections have been waived. Id.
The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report &
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff has brought this litigation
alleging that Defendants made and are using and publishing a recording of allegedly defamatory
comments made against Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs attempted to retrieve their son’s car after their son
was pulled over for a driving violation. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order and/or
Temporary Restraining Order/Permanent Injunction [#76] in order to prevent the dissemination of

the video recording made by Defendant Hopp. The Court concurs with the recommendation that
Plaintiffs’ Motion [#76] be denied for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs cannot meet the standard
for good cause as required for a protective order; (2) Plaintiffs have already filed the allegedly
sensitive material in their own documents with the Court, making it part of the public record; (3) the
Illinois eavesdropping statute, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, does not apply; and (4) the defamation claim has
already been dismissed in a previous order [#50].
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#88] of the Magistrate
Judge in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order and/or Temporary Restraining
Order/Permanent Injunction [#76] is DENIED. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for
further proceedings.
ENTERED this 20th

day of July, 2011.

s/Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge

-2-