Opinion
22-1134-EFM-ADM
11-30-2022
MARQUAN TEETZ, as next friend and personal representative of the Estate of Cedric Lofton, Plaintiff, v. SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Angel D. Mitchell, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
This civil-rights lawsuit arises from the death of Cedric Lofton while in police custody. It comes before the court on Defendants' Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order. (ECF 50.) The motion states that plaintiff agrees a protective order is warranted, but that plaintiff opposes defendants' proposed categories of documents that could be designated as confidential and defendants' proposed procedure for a party to challenge a confidential designation. Defendants' motion is granted for essentially two reasons.
First, plaintiff did not timely oppose the motion. Plaintiffs did not file a response to the motion within the deadline set by D. KAN. RULE 6.1(d)(1), so the court grants the motion as uncontested. See D. KAN. RULE 7.4(b). Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff disagrees about the scope and/or form protective order, plaintiff's deadline to file a competing motion along with plaintiff's proposed protective was November 11, 2022. (ECF 42, at 6.) Plaintiff did not file a competing motion by that deadline, nor has plaintiff sought an extension of that deadline.
Second, the court finds good cause to adopt the two disputed provisions that defendants propose because they are consistent with the court's form protective order. See Yomi v. Becerra, No. 21-2224-DDC, 2022 WL 36413, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 4, 2022) (“The court's form protective order includes provisions deemed necessary in civil cases for the fair and efficient resolution of cases.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order (ECF 50) is granted. The court will enter a protective order that includes defendants' proposed language in a separate docket entry.