Opinion
2:21-cv-02135-JAD-NJK
04-01-2022
JAMES PAUL OTTERSON, Plaintiffs, v. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER [DOCKET NOS. 29-30]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's emergency motion for zoom call and Defendant's motion to strike. Docket Nos. 29-30.
As to the first motion, Plaintiff seeks a zoom call to discuss Defendant's contention that a settlement was reached. See Docket No. 29. That request will be denied. To the extent Plaintiff would like to contest Defendant's contention that there is a settlement, he must do so by opposing in writing any motion to enforce settlement. That written opposition must be complete and provide all of Plaintiff's arguments that he would like the Court to consider.
Concurrently herewith, the Court is issuing an order denying without prejudice Defendant's motion to enforce settlement. To the extent such motion is renewed, however, Plaintiff must file a written response rather than simply seeking a hearing.
As to the second motion, Defendant seeks to strike the motion for zoom call on the grounds that it reveals settlement information. Docket No. 30. The motion to strike will be granted. Parties must generally refrain from publicly disclosing settlement information. See Local Rule 16-5. To the extent there is a dispute as to the existence of a settlement, the parties must file such information under seal with a concurrent motion to seal explaining why the pertinent standards are met for sealing. See Local Rule IA 10-5. The Court will then determine whether those communications will in fact remain sealed. Local Rule 16-5. Hence, it is for the Court and not for any particular party to determine whether such information should be publicly known.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs emergency motion for a zoom call (Docket No. 29) and GRANTS Defendant's motion to strike (Docket No. 30).
IT IS SO ORDERED.