Motion Regarding Corrections to Stipulated Protective Order
Estate of: Ralph Covell, 23PR-0053
Hearing: Motion Regarding Corrections to Stipulated Protective Order
Date: June 3, 2026
Ralph Covell died on February 3, 2023. He was survived by his wife, Margaret MacConnell, and five children: Sierra Covell, Cambria Covell, Nicole Covell, Monique Delekta, and Tara Covell Key. 1 On March 3, 2023, Sierra filed a petition for appointment as the personal representative of Ralph’s estate. Ten days later, Margaret and Tara filed a competing petition for appointment. Cambria filed separate objections to each petition; Nicole filed an objection to Margaret and Tara’s petition; and the competing petitioners filed objections to the other’s petition for appointment.
In December 2025, the Court granted Tara’s motion for a protective order with directions to circulate a proposed protective order with the changes outlined in the Court’s ruling. The motion’s primary dispute was whether Cambria’s mother, Katherine Hanson, should be allowed access to the produced documents. The ruling stated:
Cambria reports she is a disabled individual whose disability affects her “Working Memory Index.” Cambria states that while she has a high IQ, she has “significant challenges in recognizing essential details during complex tasks and in accurately interpreting information.” Katherine has asserted in these proceedings that she holds a power of attorney for Cambria. The Court finds Katherine may access documents produced in this matter to assist Cambria. Before accessing any “Confidential Information” (as defined in the protective order), Katherine must provide to Tara’s counsel, a signed Consent to be Bound (exhibit A of the proposed protective order).
(Ruling, p. 1, italics added.)
The proposed stipulation circulated by Tara’s counsel provides, “Neither the Parties nor their counsel may disclose Confidential Information, either directly or indirectly, to any person or entity, including but not limited to Kathy Hansen.”
In the current motion, Cambria asks that the language be changed to provide access to Katherine Hanson in accordance with the Court’s December 2025 ruling. Tara responds, “the Court’s Ruling [does] not reference that change, it addresses the issue of Cambria’s mother having access to the document[s] by superficially ordering” Katherine to provide a Consent to be Bound, which she has not done.
1 For clarity, the Court refers to the parties by their first names. No disrespect is intended. 1
Requiring a Consent to be Bound but then specially excluding Katherine in the stipulation itself is illogical. The Court specifically found, “Katherine may access documents produced in this matter to assist Cambria.” (Ruling, p. 1.) The Court orders that the stipulation provide:
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Neither the Parties nor their counsel may disclose Confidential Information, either directly or indirectly, to any person or entity, with the exception that Katherine Hanson is permitted access to assist her daughter, Cambria Covell, provided Katherine Hanson has signed the attached Consent to be Bound and delivered it to Tara Covell’s attorney.
As neither side provided a copy of the proposed stipulation circulated after the last hearing, it is unclear if other language needs to be included in the paragraph.
ORDER
The motion is granted. The parties should come prepared to address whether other language needs to be included in the Court-drafted paragraph in accordance with the proposed stipulation circulated after the last hearing.
Cambria should come prepared to address whether her mother has signed the Consent to be Bound. Any signed stipulation will not take effect until she has done so.
Cambria’s request for sanctions is denied.
2