Composto v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Full title: PENNY COMPOSTO, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jun 19, 2009

Civil Action No. 08-cv-02423-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Jun. 19, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-cv-02423-CMA-BNB.

June 19, 2009

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Motion for Protective Order [Doc. # 39, filed 6/1/2009]; and

(2) Amended Motion for Protective Order [Doc. # 42, filed 6/2/2009].

I held a hearing on the motions this afternoon and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here. Significantly, the motions seek the same relief; they vary only as to the content of ¶ 7 of each motion. In summary and for the reasons stated on the record:

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order and Amended Motion for Protective Order are GRANTED insofar as they seek an order relieving the plaintiff of any obligation to execute additional authorizations for the release of records.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order and Amended Motion for Protective Order are DENIED without prejudice in all other respects. To the extent the plaintiff is seeking further protection from discovery, the parties are directed to confer pursuant the D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A to attempt to resolve any disputes. If additional disputes exist that cannot be resolved, the parties may file additional motions addressing those issues.