Ulibarri et al v. Denver, Colorado, The City and County of et al

Filing 345

ORDER finding as moot 343 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify. Issued by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 11/23/11.(odslc1, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
DEBBIE ULIBARRI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 07-CV-1814-ODS

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO AMEND FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Amend Final Pretrial Order. The motion (Doc.
# 343) is consented to in part and opposed in part. However, it seeks to amend an
order that was already amended, so it is denied as moot.
In October 2009, the Honorable Michael J. Watanabe, United States Magistrate
Judge for this District, issued a Final Pretrial Order which, inter alia, listed the witnesses
the parties planned to call at trial and the witnesses the parties might call at trial.
Defendants seek permission to move six witnesses from the “will call” to the “may call”
list, which Plaintiffs do not oppose. Defendants also seek permission to add a new
witness to the “may call” list, which they report Plaintiffs oppose (although Plaintiffs have
not filed a formal opposition explaining why they oppose this request). However, on
October 17, 2011, the undersigned issued a Scheduling and Trial Order; paragraph 4(e)
directs that five days before the pretrial conference (which is set for February 9, 2012)
the parties shall file a list of witnesses who may be called at trial. The Court
acknowledges this procedure may be different from that customarily used in this district,
but nonetheless the Court has effectively amended the previously issued Final Pretrial
Order.
The Court’s ruling should not be taken to mean that parties can name witnesses
that were not disclosed during the course of discovery. If such an eventuality arises, a
party may raise the issue with the Court. With that caveat, however, the witnesses to

be called do not have to be “locked in” until five days before the pretrial conference, so
Defendants’ request to amend the list of witnesses they intend to call is moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: November 23, 2011

2