Great Lakes Exploration Group LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked and (For Salvage-Right Purposes), Abandoned Sailing Vessel, The

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 45 motion to amend/correct, denying 52 motion to strike; and scheduling a status conference before Hon. Robert Holmes Bell on Friday, October 7, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. at the Ford Federal Building, Courtroom 601, 110 Michigan Ave. NW, Grand Rapids, Michigan; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

G r e a t Lakes Exploration Group LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked and (For Sa...bandoned Sailing Vessel, The

D o c . 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H ER N DIVISION

G R E A T LAKES EXPLORATION G R O U P LLC, P l a i n ti f f , F i l e No. 1:04-CV-375 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL T H E UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED, and (FOR SALVAGE-RIGHT PURPOSES), A B A N D O N E D SAILING VESSEL, her t a c k le , apparel, appurtenances, cargo, etc. l o c a te d within a circle having a radius of 3.5 statute miles, whose center point is at c o o r d i n a te s 45º 32.8' North latitude and 86º 41.5' West longitude, In Rem, De fend ant, v. M I C H IG A N DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, A R T S AND LIBRARIES AND MICHIGAN D E P A R T M E N T OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Intervenors. / MEMO RANDUM O PINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Great Lakes Exploration Group LLC's m o t i o n to alter or amend the Court's July 13, 2005 Protective Order (Docket #44). The p r o t e c ti v e order mandated that "discovery materials and documents filed with the Court that

Dockets.Justia.com

d i s c l o s e the precise location of the Defendant wrecked vessel shall be filed under seal in accord with this Court's May 10, 2005, order . . . ." The protective order also placed certain t er m s and conditions upon the exchange and use of materials containing the precise location o f Defendant. In this motion, Plaintiff requests three additions and one deletion from the p r o t e c ti v e order. The requested changes consist of provisions which were in Plaintiff's o ri g i n a l proposed protective order. See Exhibit 2 (Docket #40). The Court previously r e v i e w e d Plaintiff's proposed order and rejected it. In its present motion, Plaintiff has not pro vid ed the Court with any reason to alter this decision. Over three months ago, the Court ordered Plaintiff to disclose the location of D e f e n d a n t to Intervenors in order to facilitate the necessary investigation of Defendant. In l i g h t of the need for confidentiality as well as to ensure the prompt disclosure of the location, t h e Court also entered a protective order sealing documents containing the precise location o f Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to challenge certain discovery requ ests by Intervenors, that issue is not presently before the Court and is properly addressed t h r o u g h a specific challenge to a specific discovery request. An overbroad protective order, s u c h as the one requested by Plaintiff, is not the proper method for vindicating their objection to Intervenors' requests. The Court reemphasizes that Intervenors must be given the precise location of De fend ant. Given the rapidly approaching seasonal change and the unpredictability of northern Michigan weather, the parties must move with expedited speed in order to

2

a c c o m p l i s h this investigation. The disclosure of Defendant's location will greatly assist this task . Intervenors have also filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's "Reply to Motion for P r o t e c ti v e Order." While Plaintiff's brief technically does not comply with the Court's local rule on briefing for non-dispositive motions, see W. D. Mich. LCivR 7.3(c), Intervenors have n o t been prejudiced by the filing. Intervenors also request that the Court strike Plaintiff's " N o t i c e of Filing of U.S. State Department Communications" (Docket #51). Quite frankly, t h e Court is perplexed by Plaintiff's most recent filing. The issues raised in the e-mail from t h e State Department and attached memorandum are not material to any issue presently before the Court. As such, it is not necessary to strike the notice. Consequently, Intervenors' m ot io n to strike is denied. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend protective order ( D o c k e t #45) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intervenors' motion to strike (Docket #52) is D E N I E D. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference will be held before this Cou rt on Friday, October 7, 2005 at 2 p.m. at the Ford Federal Building, Courtroom 601, 110 M i c h i g a n N.W., Grand Rapids, MI 49503.

Da te:

August 19, 2005

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLM E S BELL C H IE F UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3