The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-cv-1341 - Erbacher v. City Of Fort Collins, et al. - 095 - City's Unopp Mot Amend the Protective OrderIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-1341-CNS-NRN Cody Erbacher, Plaintiff. v. City of Fort Collins; and Jason Haferman. Defendants. DEFENDANT CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND THE PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF 38) Defendant City of Fort Collins, through their undersigned counsel, Hall & Evans, LLC, submit the following as their Unopposed Motion to Amend The Protective Order (ECF 38) as follows: CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL Undersigned Counsel conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant Haferman. Both Counsel indicated there are no objections to the requested relief. CERTIFICATE RE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) Counsel for Defendant hereby certifies that no portion of this filing was drafted by AI. Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 95 filed 12/06/24 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 4 2 I. INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT This matter arises out of Plaintiff’s arrest on June 11, 2021, by Defendant, former Fort Collins Police Officer, Jason Haferman, and the ensuing investigation and prosecution for the crime of Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were violated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 27, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order (See ECF 35). The following day, September 28, 2023, this Court Granted the parties Joint Motion for Protective Order and approved the Proposed Protective Order which was filed by the parties. (See ECF 38). Defendant, City of Fort Collins is seeking to amend the protective order to include a provision for “Confidential-Attorney’s Eyes Only”. On December 5, 2024, the Court held a discovery dispute hearing, which addressed certain confidential records, which were submitted for an in-camera inspection (See ECF 82-83). After argument and discussion, the Court Ordered production of the records identified in ECF 82 and 83. As part of the production, the Court also ordered the records marked “Confidential” and “Attorneys Eyes Only.” A review of the Protective Order previously granted by this Court, does not contain an “Attorneys Eyes Only” provision. Therefore, the City of Fort Collins is seeking to amend the Protective Order, with the addition of the language in Exhibit A. There is no prejudice to any of the parties with respect to the proposed amendment, as all parties have agreed to the requested relief. Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 95 filed 12/06/24 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 4 3 WHEREFORE, Defendant, City of Fort Collins, requests the Court grant its Motion, and enter Exhibit A as an amendment to the Protective Order, ECF 38. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of December 2024. s/ Mark S. Ratner Mark S. Ratner, Esq. Robert A. Weiner, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202 303-628-3300 /Fax: 303-628-3368 ratnerm@hallevans.com weinerr@hallevans.com Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 95 filed 12/06/24 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on the 6th day of December 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF 38) was filed with the Court via CM/ECF and served on the below-listed party by email: Sarah Schielke, Esq. sarah@lifeandlibertylaw.com Jonathan M. Abramson, Esq. jabramson@sgrllc.com Yulia Nikolaevskaya, Esq. jnikolaevskaya@sgrllc.com s/ Sarah Stefanick Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 95 filed 12/06/24 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-1341-CNS-NRN Cody Erbacher, Plaintiff. v. City of Fort Collins; and Jason Haferman. Defendants. AMENDMENT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of an amendment to the protective order previously entered in this matter at ECF 38 (“Protective Order”) and to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or information which will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing discovery in this case, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The following provisions are to be included as part of the Protective Order, and made an Order of this Court: a. In addition to the designation of “Confidential” as that term is defined in the Protective Order, the parties may also designate any documentation, materials or deposition testimony obtained or produced in the litigation of this matter, as “Confidential-Attorneys Eyes Only or “Attorneys Eyes Only.” b. A designation of Attorneys Eyes Only, with a separate indication of “Confidential” on the document or testimony, shall have the same meaning as if marked as “Confidential-Attorneys Eyes Only.” Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 95-1 filed 12/06/24 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 4 2 c. Any document designated as “Confidential” or “Confidential-Attorney’s Eyes Only” must have been reviewed by counsel of record in the above- captioned action who in good faith determined the document is entitled to protection. d. Those portions of said deposition transcripts designated as “Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only”, and those documents disclosed to counsel of record marked “Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” shall not, without written consent of the party producing the information, be disclosed to any person or entity beyond counsel of record in this matter, for Plaintiff, counsel of record for Defendants, and any individual Defendant at whose deposition “Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” documents are used. Such information is for attorneys’ eyes only and shall not be disclosed to represented parties. Should the need arise to use Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only information at trial, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss the reasonable bounds of such disclosure. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement, the party opposing the disclosure shall bring the matter before the Court in a timely fashion. 2. The amendments as set forth in the Order, are not intended to supersede or replace any of the provision as set forth in ECF 38, but are meant to supplement any such provisions. Dated: BY THE COURT ____________________________ Magistrate Judge Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 95-1 filed 12/06/24 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 4 3 Respectfully submitted this 6th day of December 2024. s/ Mark S. Ratner Mark S. Ratner, Esq. Robert A. Weiner, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202 303-628-3300 /Fax: 303-628-3368 ratnerm@hallevans.com weinerr@hallevans.com Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 95-1 filed 12/06/24 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on the 6th day of December 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing AMENDMENT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER was filed with the Court via CM/ECF and served on the below-listed party by email: Sarah Schielke, Esq. sarah@lifeandlibertylaw.com Jonathan M. Abramson, Esq. jabramson@sgrllc.com Yulia Nikolaevskaya, Esq. jnikolaevskaya@sgrllc.com s/ Sarah Stefanick Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 95-1 filed 12/06/24 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 4