Escobar v. Jones et al

Filing 129

MINUTE ORDER denying 127 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/14/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02207-CMA-KLM
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN S. JONES,
ASSOCIATE WARDEN B. ALLEN,
MAJOR HOLDITCH,
CAPTAIN K. FOSTER,
CAPTAIN J. DALTON,
LIEUTENANT MARTZ,
LIEUTENANT CHAVEZ,
SERGEANT A. LUNA,
SERGEANT BINDER,
SERGEANT J. WEST,
SERGEANT HARDRICK,
SERGEANT HUDSPETH,
SERGEANT KELEMAN
C/O D. GALLAGHER,
C/O BRYANT,
C/O A. DALTON,
C/O R. MARTINEZ,
C/O PASARO,
NURSE N. WALKER, and
DOCTOR WRIGHT,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Docket No. 127;
Filed July 14, 2011] (the “Motion”). On June 17, 2011, the Court directed Plaintiff to file
a motion to compel on or before July 15, 2011 if he wanted the Court to address
Defendants’ alleged discovery misconduct [Docket No. 126]. The present Motion appears
to be filed pursuant to my prior Order. However, in that Order, I informed Plaintiff that any
motion to compel

must comply with all applicable rules, including that it must certify that
Plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute with Defendants prior to seeking
Court involvement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and must contain
either a verbatim recitation of the discovery requests at issue or attach a
copy of such requests pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1. The failure to
comply with any applicable rule will result in the Motion to Compel
being summarily denied.
Order [#126] at 2 (emphasis added).
Despite my clear warning, the Motion does not certify that Plaintiff conferred with
Defendants prior to filing the present Motion.1 Moreover, the Motion does not comply with
Local Rule 37.1. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
As set forth in my prior Order, unless Plaintiff files an appropriate motion to compel
by July 15, 2011, he shall respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment on or before
August 1, 2011.
Dated: July 14, 2011

1

Although the Motion references conversations with defense counsel that allegedly
occurred in December 2010 and January 2011, Plaintiff does not contend that he has recently
conferred with defense counsel regarding the alleged discovery dispute in an attempt to resolve
the dispute without Court assistance as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).

2