Ramirez v. GEO Group, Inc., The et al

Filing 62

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion for Reconsideration. The response filed 7/17/09 56 will be accepted through page 20; pages 21 through 27 remain stricken. The motion for reconsideration 60 is denied in all other respects. Defendants' reply, if any, in support of their motion for summary judgment shall be due on or before 8/11/09. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/27/09. (pabsec)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv-00515-PAB-CBS CELIA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., and JENNIFER BEAUMAN, Individually, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Denial of Motion for Two Day Extension to File Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Accept Amended Brief for Filing, and Request for Hearing [Docket No. 60]. The Court has reviewed the pleading and is fully advised in the premises. It is ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 60] is granted in part and denied in part. The Court notes that, although plaintiff claims she acted in "good faith" and with "due diligence," if plaintiff had acted in "good faith" she would have filed a motion for extension of time on or before July 12 and would have filed a brief of appropriate length. If plaintiff had acted with "due diligence," she would have filed her brief when it was due. However, in light of potential prejudice to plaintiff and the lack of prejudice to defendants, the motion for reconsideration is granted in part. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is granted in that the response brief filed on July 17, 2009 [Docket No. 56] will be accepted through page 20, the limit prescribed by my Practice Standards.1 Due to plaintiff's failure to meet the already extended deadline of July 15, 2009, failure to comply with the Court's practice Plaintiff states that the defendants agreed to her filing a twenty-five-page brief. However, agreement of the parties cannot, by itself, extend the page limits for responses to summary judgment motions. Although defendants filed a motion to extend the page limits for their motion for summary judgment, thus creating grounds for plaintiff to ask for a corresponding extension, plaintiff, unlike defendants, made no effort to do so.
1

standards regarding extensions of time and page limits, and given the time constraints imposed by the impending hearing on this motion and the upcoming trial in the case, pages 21 through 27 of the response remain stricken. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied in all other respects. It is further ORDERED that defendants' reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be due on or before Tuesday, August 11, 2009.

DATED July 27, 2009

2