Birch et al v. Polaris Industries, No. 2:2013cv00633 - Document 55 (D. Utah 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 49 Motion for Protective Order; granting 54 Motion to Seal Document 51 Response to Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 04/28/2014. (tls) Modified on 4/28/2014 by adding Memorandum Decision language and changing document type to opinion (tls).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION JUSTIN HARRISON BIRCH, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of VIRL LANE BIRCH, JOY FINLAYSON BIRCH, JUSTIN HARRISON BIRCH, JORDAN DOUGLASS BIRCH and COLTON BENNION BIRCH, Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-00633 United States District Court Judge Robert Shelby Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC., Defendant. Currently before the Court is Defendant Polaris Industries Motion For Protective Order seeking to bar the depositions of Mike Schneider, Matt Kantrud, Andy Ives, Jim Lenz and Becky Bergson (doc. 49). This motion, along with other discovery related matters, are subject to the Short Form Discovery Order as issued by District Court Judge Robert Shelby on January 21, 2014 (doc. 28).1 Consistent therewith, the motion and response have been submitted in short form and consideration of the matter has been expedited. Upon review of the parties submissions, the Court hereby denies Defendant Polaris Industries Motion For Protective Order (doc. 49). As the moving party, Defendant fails to meet its burden of establishing annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense 1 This matter is assigned to Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead by referral from Judge Shelby pursuant to 28 USC ยง 636(b)(1)(A) (doc. 33). stemming from the depositions of the named individuals (doc. 49-1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Specifically, while Defendant appears to challenge the utility of the depositions, or otherwise assert that there are better alternatives, the Court concludes that such argument is insufficient for Defendant to meet its burden under the motion. Accordingly, the parties are hereby instructed to meet and confer in order to establish a mutually convenient date and time to conduct the relevant depositions. ORDER 1. Defendant s Motion For Protective Order is DENIED (doc. 49). 2. Plaintiff s Motion To Seal Exhibit 3 (doc. 51-3) of Plaintiffs Response to Defendant Polaris Motion for Protection (doc. 51) is GRANTED DATED this 28th day of April, 2014. ____________________________________ Dustin Pead U.S. Federal Magistrate Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
