Prkic v. Sezzle Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN
MARIA J. PRKIC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEZZLE, INC.,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER1
Entered by Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Maria J. Prkic’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion to
Compel Production of Original Unedited Videotaped Deposition Recording and for
Sanctions (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 and 37)” (ECF No. 139) is DENIED without prejudice.
In her Motion, Plaintiff makes several assumptions about the supposed unfair or
incomplete editing of the deposition video. To assess whether the video is accurate or
not, one should compare the video with the transcript of the deposition, which Plaintiff
concedes she does not have, and has not yet reviewed. Once Plaintiff has received and
reviewed the transcript and compared it with the video segments that she is in
possession of, she may seek relief to the extent she believes the video does not
accurately reflect what is shown by the transcript. At this time, the relief sought by
Plaintiff does not appear to be justified.
1 Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a pretrial
matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a Magistrate Judge to
hear and decide, the Magistrate Judge must issue a written order stating the decision.
Within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of this Minute Order, any party may
serve and file written objections with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Failure to make any
such objection will result in a waiver of the right to appeal the non-dispositive order. See
Sinclair Wyo. Ref. Co. v. A & B Builders, Ltd. 989 F.3d 747, 782 (10th Cir. 2021) (firm
waiver rule applies to non-dispositive orders); but see Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418
F.3d 1116, 1119, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not apply when the
interests of justice require review, such as when a “pro se litigant has not been informed
of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object”).
Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN Document 142 filed 12/30/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

With respect to Plaintiff’s “Notice of Irregularities” during the deposition (ECF No.
137), the Court does not find that there was anything necessarily irregular about what
happened at the deposition. The Court will note that the deposition was conducted in
the Court’s jury deliberation room, and the Court was available in real time to address
any concerns or objections to how the deposition was being conducted. The deposition
was held in the jury room with a judicial officer just steps away for the precise purpose
of allowing either side to make objections or concerns known at the time of the
deposition and to be ruled upon at that time. To the extent Plaintiff failed to make any
objections or raise her concerns with the Court at the time the deposition was being
taken, those “concerns” or “objections” have been waived.
Date: December 30, 2025
Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN Document 142 filed 12/30/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2