Nasious v. Denver, City and County of et al

Filing 179

MINUTE ORDER denying 172 Motion to Strike Defendat's [sic] Deposition of John Nasious as Premature from Discovery and Not Allow Admission to Court Docut [sic]. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 12/14/2011.(jjpsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 08–cv–00275–CMA–KMT

JOHN NASIOUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER - Denver Sheriffs [sic] Department,
SHERIFF STRONG, Denver Sheriffs [sic] Department, in his official and individual capacity,
NURSE ROSIE PAGLIANO - Denver Sheriffs [sic] Department, in her official and individual
capacity,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Defendat’s [sic] Deposition of John Nasious as Premature from
Discovery and Not Allow Admission to Court Docut [sic]” (Doc. No. 172, filed November 3,
2011) is DENIED. This court set a discovery schedule, and a deadline of October 24, 2011 for
the parties to conduct discovery, during the Preliminary Scheduling Conference on April 25,
2011. (See Doc. No. 149.) The defendants properly deposed Plaintiff on October 12, 2011, less
than two weeks prior to the discovery deadline.
To the extent Plaintiff objects to his deposition being taken before ruling on his motion to amend
his complaint, the objection lacks merit because the motion to amend was denied on November
9, 2011. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to file a motion to quash his deposition or to object to his
deposition being taken; nor did Plaintiff seek to extend the discovery deadline to allow for his
deposition to be taken after ruling on his motion to amend. To the extent Plaintiff objects to his
deposition being taken because he “did not have enough discovery” to answer the questions, the
court notes that Plaintiff has failed to request any discovery from Defendants. (See Doc. No. 177
at 2.) The court also notes that Plaintiff’s deposition properly was noticed by the defendants and
that the deposition focused on Plaintiff’s background, his recollection of the alleged events, and
his claims regarding the alleged events. (See id.)
Dated: December 14, 2011