KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on "Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions Against Defendant Renee Cygan" (Doc. No. 617, filed March 11, 2012).
In the Scheduling Conference in this case, the court ordered the parties to confer by e-mail only, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, prior to filing motions. The local rule requires that parties confer in good faith before they file a motion. The rule states:
"The purpose of Rule 7.1A is to require the parties to confer and to attempt to resolve a dispute before incurring the expense of filing a motion and before requiring the court to address a disputed issue." Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 635 (D. Colo.2003). Further, Rule 7.1A requires "meaningful negotiations" by the parties. Hoelzel, 214 F.R.D. at 635. The rule generally is not satisfied by one party sending a single e-mail to another party indicating an intention to file a motion without suggesting any negotiation or compromise. 214 F.R.D. at 635. However, in this case, the court is well aware of the adverse stance held by each of the parties and the lack of cooperation between the adverse parties. Thus, in this case, the court will not require multiple attempts at conferral prior to any party's filing a motion. Rather, the court will allow for the filing of a motion if a party makes a good faith conferral by e-mail and receives a response by e-mail that the motion is opposed. The conferral should be straightforward and address only issues for which the party proposes to seek relief from the court. The parties should not confer about matters outside the issues in this case. The parties are advised that when sending an e-mail conferral request, if they do not receive a response within twenty-four hours, they should consider the motion opposed and so state in their motion. Thus, the parties need not make multiple requests at conferral if the opposing parties have not responded. Additionally, the parties are advised that the conferral requirement is not satisfied by a party making a demand for compliance or compromise.
Finally, at this time there is no protective order in place that precludes the parties from sending documents to anyone they choose. The documents as filed are part of the public record. Again, this court will not deal with issues extraneous to the issues in this case.
Therefore, it is