Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Evelyn Cote and Alfred Cote v. Tom Hopp

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


July 20, 2011

EVELYN COTE AND ALFRED COTE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TOM HOPP, SARAH HOUSTON, SCOTT COWSER, DAN LEEZER, JAMES DROZDZ, BRIAN HUNTER, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

E-FILED

Wednesday, 20 July, 2011 03:25:14 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

ORDER

On June 24, 2011, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.

The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff has brought this litigation alleging that Defendants made and are using and publishing a recording of allegedly defamatory comments made against Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs attempted to retrieve their son's car after their son was pulled over for a driving violation. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order and/or Temporary Restraining Order/Permanent Injunction [#76] in order to prevent the dissemination of the video recording made by Defendant Hopp. The Court concurs with the recommendation that Plaintiffs' Motion [#76] be denied for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs cannot meet the standard for good cause as required for a protective order; (2) Plaintiffs have already filed the allegedly sensitive material in their own documents with the Court, making it part of the public record; (3) the Illinois eavesdropping statute, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, does not apply; and (4) the defamation claim has already been dismissed in a previous order [#50].

Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#88] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order and/or Temporary Restraining Order/Permanent Injunction [#76] is DENIED. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

Michael M. Mihm

20110720

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.