Free Objection to Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02319-WDM-MJW

Document 90

Filed 07/13/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.: 03-CV-02319-WDM-MJW OLOYEA D. WALLIN, Plaintiff, vs. CMI, KIM DEMPEWOLF, RYAN BRADLEY, MARY, SANDRA, AARON, JASON and CHARLES Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO PROTECTIVE ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ COME NOW the Defendants, CMI and Kim Dempewolf, by and through counsel, and hereby submit the following Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Protective Order:

1.

On June 14, 2005, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Protective Order

regarding the disclosure to Plaintiff of the last known addresses of the unserved Defendants. The Court ordered Defendants to provide the last known addresses of the unserved Defendants under seal so that Court could provide the information to the U.S. Marshal Service to effectuate service.

Case 1:03-cv-02319-WDM-MJW

Document 90

Filed 07/13/2005

Page 2 of 4

Defendants complied with the Court's Order and provided the last known addresses of the unserved Defendants under seal on June 20, 2005. 2. Plaintiff objects to the Court's Order, arguing: (1) Defendants' counsel does not

represent the unserved Defendants and has no standing to seek a protective order; (2) the Court did not conduct an appropriate balancing inquiry pursuant to Martinelli v. District Court, 612 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1980); (3) Plaintiff is being treated unfairly due to his incarceration, and; (4) Plaintiff will need the address information after service is accomplished in order to correspond with all parties. 3. First, while the undersigned does not currently represent the unserved Defendants,

Defendant CMI is in possession of the unserved Defendants' personnel files and has an obligation to protect personal and private information contained in their files. The unserved Defendants are not currently in a position to assert confidentiality with respect to their contact information. 4. Second, the unserved Defendants have a legitimate expectation that their

personal contact information will not be disseminated without their consent. The Court recognized the privacy interests of the unserved Defendants, and also recognized Plaintiff's interest in having these Defendants served. The Court fashioned an appropriate remedy in balancing the privacy interests of the unserved Defendants and the interests of Plaintiff. 5. Third, employees at CMI interact with violent criminal offenders on a daily

basis and have a reasonable expectation that their private information will not be disclosed to these offenders. To require the disclosure of private contact information of CMI employees would have a chilling effect on how CMI employees interact with their clients, and may impair their ability to effectively do their job. At the same time, Defendants understand that because Plaintiff has filed a -2-

Case 1:03-cv-02319-WDM-MJW

Document 90

Filed 07/13/2005

Page 3 of 4

lawsuit, some compromise must be made to ensure that Plaintiff is not unfairly prejudiced in prosecuting his case. Again, Defendants submit that requiring Defendants to file the personal information under seal was an appropriate compromise at this stage of the case. 6. Finally, Plaintiff's argument that he needs the confidential contact information so

that he may send all "legal correspondence" when the Defendants are served should be rejected. Plaintiff will be required to send all correspondence and pleadings to the unserved Defendants' counsel, when and if they are served. Plaintiff has made no showing that he needs this information at this stage of the case. Defendants submit that unless and until it is necessary, the unserved Defendants' private contact information should not be disclosed to Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of July, 2005.

s/ Steven J. Wienczkowski Scott S. Nixon Steven J. Wienczkowski PRYOR JOHNSON CARNEY KARR NIXON , P.C. 5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 1200 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 (303) 773-3500 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR CMI AND KIM DEMPEWOLF

-3-

Case 1:03-cv-02319-WDM-MJW

Document 90

Filed 07/13/2005

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on the 7th day of July, 2005, a true and correct copy of Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Protective Order was placed in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to: Oloyea D. Wallin Reg. No. 111389 Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility P.O. Box 1000 Crowley, Colorado 81034

s/Laura Buckingham ______________________________________ Laura Buckingham, on behalf of Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C.

-4-