DISH Network Corporation et al v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company et al

Filing 106

AMENDED 105 MINUTE ORDER: Magistrate Judge Hegarty's 96 Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery is AFFIRMED. In light of Magistrate Judge Hegartys decision to compel additional limited discovery, the briefing schedule for the Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. #s 62 , 65 , 66 , 68 , and 72 ) is modified as follows: Plaintiffs' Response Briefs are Due: 02/01/2010, Defendants' Reply Briefs are Due: 02/15/2010, by Judge John L. Kane on 12/18/2009. (wjc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane Civil Action No. 09-cv-00447-JLK DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, and DISH NETWORK LLC, Plaintiffs, v. ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC., and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Defendants. AMENDED MINUTE ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE HEGARTY'S ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY AND MODIFYING EXTENDED BRIEFING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Judge John L. Kane ORDERS This case was filed on March 4, 2009, Doc. # 1, and amended on March 7, 2009, Doc. # 3. On September 10, 2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), I referred the case to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty for purposes of conducting discovery and resolving non-dispositive motions. Doc. # 55. On October 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed its First Motion to Compel and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery From All Defendants and for Attorney Fees and Costs. Doc. #67. On November 12, 2009, Magistrate Judge Hegarty issued an Order, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. Doc. # 89. Plaintiff appeals

Magistrate Judge Hegarty's ruling, arguing that his decision was contrary to law and should be set aside. Doc. # 96. Having reviewed Magistrate Judge's Hegarty's ruling and the parties' arguments on this matter, I find that Plaintiff has failed to adduce sufficient legal support to justify a conclusion that Magistrate Judge Hegarty's ruling was contrary to law. Each of the cases cited by plaintiff are distinguishable from the case at hand. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery is AFFIRMED. In light of Magistrate Judge Hegarty's decision to compel additional limited discovery, the briefing schedule for the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. #'s 62, 65, 66, 68, and 72) is modified as follows: Plaintiffs' Response Briefs are Due: Defendants' Reply Briefs are Due: February 1, 2010 February 15, 2010

DATED: December 18, 2009