Enos-Martinez v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Mesa, The

Filing 107

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David L. West: Motion Hearing held on 6/27/2011. Granting in part and denying in part 82 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions, denying 95 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment. (FTR: Shirley Dills) (gmssl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge David L. West
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL COURTROOM MINUTES
______________________________________________________________________________
Civil Action No.: 10-CV-00033-WJM-DLW
Date: June 27, 2011
Secretarial Assistant: Shirley W. Dills
Tape No.: FTR
______________________________________________________________________________
CINDY ENOS-MARTINEZ,

Attorney: John Keith Killian

Plaintiff
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MESA COUNTY,

Attorney: Alan Hassler

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
HEARING: ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEPOSITIONS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STEVE AQUAFRESCA, CRAIG MEIS,
AND JANET ROWLAND, FORMER COUNTY EMPLOYEE TIM RYAN AND DEFENSE
EXPERT PATRICK IBARRA [DOC. #82] AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE/REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[DOC. #81] AND SUPPORTING BRIEF IF PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RULE 56(d)
RELIEF IS DENIED [DOC. #95]
Court in Session: 8:05 a.m.
Counsel for the Plaintiff, John Killian, appeared telephonically. Counsel for the Defendant, Alan
Hassler, appeared in person.
Court heard argument from counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the above-captioned
motions and then allowed each side to respond to the other’s argument.
ORDERED:
•
As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Depositions [Doc. #82], the Court finds motion
should be DENIED as to Defense Expert, Patrick Iberra. As to former County

Employee, Tim Ryan, and County Commissioners, Steve Aquafresca, Craig Meis
and Janet Rowlan, Motion is GRANTED for the reasons set forth on the record.
ORDERED:
•
As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. #95] to File Response/Reply
to [Doc.# 81] Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief if Plaintiff’s
Request for Rule 56(d) Relief is Denied, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not
complied with Judge Martinez’s Practice Standards, II General Procedures( page 4),
E Deadlines, paragraph 2, therefore, the Motion [Doc. #81] is DENIED for the
reasons set forth on the record.
Parties believe that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 81] was referred to the
Magistrate Judge and that a ruling on that is still outstanding, however, the Magistrate Judge is
unaware of that referral and believes all the referred motions have now been ruled upon. The
Magistrate Judge will check into the matter further to see if that is correct.
Once Judge Martinez has ruled upon the parties Defendant’s objections to the Orders of the
Magistrate Judge relating to Documents 33 and 68, the Magistrate Judge wants the parties to confer
and make a list of what needs to be done consistent with Judge Martinez’s rulings, then to contact
the Magistrate Judge to discuss how to proceed.
Hearing Concluded
Court in Recess: 9:18 a.m.
Time: 1 Hour 13 Minutes