Birch et al v. Polaris Industries
Filing
55
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 49 Motion for Protective Order; granting 54 Motion to Seal Document 51 Response to Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 04/28/2014. (tls) Modified on 4/28/2014 by adding Memorandum Decision language and changing document type to opinion (tls).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
JUSTIN HARRISON BIRCH, individually
and as personal representative of the
Estate of VIRL LANE BIRCH, JOY
FINLAYSON BIRCH, JUSTIN
HARRISON BIRCH, JORDAN
DOUGLASS BIRCH and COLTON
BENNION BIRCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
Case No. 2:13-cv-00633
United States District Court Judge
Robert Shelby
Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead
POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC.,
Defendant.
Currently before the Court is Defendant Polaris Industries’ Motion For Protective Order
seeking to bar the depositions of Mike Schneider, Matt Kantrud, Andy Ives, Jim Lenz and Becky
Bergson (doc. 49). This motion, along with other discovery related matters, are subject to the
Short Form Discovery Order as issued by District Court Judge Robert Shelby on January 21,
2014 (doc. 28).1 Consistent therewith, the motion and response have been submitted in “short
form” and consideration of the matter has been expedited.
Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Court hereby denies Defendant Polaris
Industries’ Motion For Protective Order (doc. 49). As the moving party, Defendant fails to meet
its burden of establishing “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense”
1
This matter is assigned to Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead by referral from Judge Shelby
pursuant to 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(A) (doc. 33).
stemming from the depositions of the named individuals (doc. 49-1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
Specifically, while Defendant appears to challenge the utility of the depositions, or otherwise
assert that there are better alternatives, the Court concludes that such argument is insufficient for
Defendant to meet its burden under the motion.
Accordingly, the parties are hereby instructed to meet and confer in order to establish a
mutually convenient date and time to conduct the relevant depositions.
ORDER
1. Defendant’s Motion For Protective Order is DENIED (doc. 49).
2. Plaintiff’s Motion To Seal Exhibit 3 (doc. 51-3) of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant
Polaris’ Motion for Protection (doc. 51) is GRANTED
DATED this 28th day of April, 2014.
____________________________________
Dustin Pead
U.S. Federal Magistrate Judge
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?