From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malibu Media, LLC v. Batz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Nov 27, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Nov. 27, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH

11-27-2012

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN BATZ, TARA W. CAMERON, and JOHN DOES 1-2, 5, 7, 9-11, 15-38, and 40-42, Defendants.


MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on November 27, 2012.

Doe #22's Motion for Protective Order [filed November 23, 2012; docket #80] is denied without prejudice for failure to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. The Court reminds the parties that it "will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel." D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A (emphasis added). Because Rule 7.1A requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003). Doe #22's Certificate of Compliance with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1 [filed under Restriction Level 2 at docket #81] represents that Doe #22 sent Plaintiff's counsel a single email, which does not constitute a good-faith effort to confer prior to seeking relief from the Court.


Summaries of

Malibu Media, LLC v. Batz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Nov 27, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Nov. 27, 2012)
Case details for

Malibu Media, LLC v. Batz

Case Details

Full title:MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN BATZ, TARA W. CAMERON, and JOHN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Nov 27, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01953-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Nov. 27, 2012)