*1 On February 17, 2023, Defendant Robert Kupper (“Kupper”) filed a “Motion to Amend Order (Doc. 179).” (Doc. No. 180). Kupper requests this Court amend its previous order to clarify the protective order in this case will only be binding on BAPTKO, Inc. with respect to the documents referenced in Kupper's original motion, Doc. No. 171, only. These documents include General Motors Dealer Operating Reports, Subaru Dealer Financial Statements, and a deposition transcript. The motion is ripe for this Court's review, as the fourteen days for Plaintiffs to respond has lapsed. See D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 7.1(B). For the reasons articulated below, the motion is DENIED.

The Court's previous order only addressed the extent of Kupper's request—the documents he outlined in his motion—and nothing more. If the parties in the BAPTKO litigation wish to enter a protective order for the discovery process in that case, they may do so and propose one to the Court. The Court also notes most of the documents at issue were previously the subject of a dispute under the protective order in this case. Kupper was concerned he would not be able to review these documents if they were marked “attorneys’ eyes only.” However, the Court previously determined these documents “shall be redesignated as confidential with respect to Kupper.” (Doc. No. 61). That order still applies, and to the extent Kupper is concerned he will not be able to review those documents further as a party or as an agent or witness of BAPTKO, Inc., those fears are misguided.

Additionally, buried within his “Motion to Amend Order” Kupper brings an additional motion to compel, requesting “the Court order the Plaintiffs to produce in the present case to Kupper the Plaintiffs’ other Dealer Financial Statements (mentioned in item 8 above) for the calendar year ending December 31, 2022, and for the month ended January 31, 2023, with ‘confidential’ designations under the Protective Order in this case, within 10 days of the Court's amended/corrected order herein.” (Doc. No. 180). Kupper also requested, “the Court order the Plaintiffs to similarly produce [to] Kupper through the date of trial in this case Plaintiffs’ future Dealer Financial Statement[s] monthly as they become available.” (Id.).

Rule 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., provides the process for a party to bring a motion to compel discovery. Moreover, D.N.D. Civ. L. R. 37.1 imposes additional requirements on a party before the party may bring a motion to compel, including a telephonic conference with the assigned magistrate judge.

The Court did not hold a status conference with the parties before Kupper filed the underlying motion. The last status conference in this case was on November 4, 2022. (Doc. No. 130). The Court held a mid-discovery status conference with the parties in the BAPTKO litigation on February 23, 2023, where the issue of the documents Kupper seeks to obtain was discussed. However, this status conference was after Kupper filed the underlying motion. The Court previously found Kupper did not comply with the rules for bringing a discovery motion in this case. (Doc. No. 161). It appears Kupper may have again bypassed the rules for bringing a discovery motion by embedding a motion to compel without following the Local Rule. The Court will not entertain such a request. Therefore, Kupper's motion (Doc. No. 180) is DENIED.

*2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 8th day of March, 2023.