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

Filing 183

ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Timothy Ryan and Request for Attorneys Fees and Costs 178 and Dr. Timothy Ryan's Motion for Stay and for Issuance of Protective Order 180 . Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Deposition of T imothy Ryan and Request for Attorneys Fees and Costs 178 is DENIED. The Court finds that F.R.C.P. 37 (a)(3)(B) does not apply to this situation and good cause does not exist to grant Plaintiffs Motion to Compel as the discovery request occurs well after the 132 Final Pretrial Order and therefore, Ryans Motion for Stay and Issuance of a Protective Order 180 is also DENIED. By Magistrate Judge David L. West on 10/10/12. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge David L. West
Civil Action No. 10-CV-00033-WJM-DLW
CINDY ENOS-MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA,
Defendant.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF TIMOTHY
RYAN AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS [DOC. #178] and
DR. TIMOTHY RYAN’S MOTION FOR STAY AND FOR ISSUANCE OF
PROTECTIVE ORDER [DOC. #180]

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Timothy Ryan (Ryan) and Request for
Attorney’s Fees and Costs [Doc. #178] is DENIED.
Ryan is a former County employee and non-party to this action. Plaintiff’s first request that
Ryan be a deponent occurred in Doc. #82, which the court granted in Doc. #107. The Plaintiff next
requested in Doc. #89 that Ryan be a deponent pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(d) so that Plaintiff could
respond to Defendant’s Dispositive Motions, Doc. #81, and the Court granted Plaintiff’s Doc. #89
request in Doc. #109. The Court found that this discovery was relevant and essential for Plaintiff
as non-moving party to respond to Defendant’s Dispositive Motions. Plaintiff responded to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. #144, without deposing Ryan and the Court

entered it’s Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. #165. Plaintiff served a
Subpoena on Ryan which was quashed in Doc. #155 for failure to comply with F.R.C.P. 45 and D.C.
Colo. L. Civ. R. 30.1. To date no other Subpoena has been served on Ryan by the Plaintiff. The
Final Pretrial Order, Doc. #132 §8, page 27, allowed for discovery beyond the Final Pretrial Order
of only the County Commissioners but not Ryan.
The Court finds that F.R.C.P. 37 (a)(3)(B) does not apply to this situation and good cause
does not exist to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as the discovery request occurs well after the
Final Pretrial Oder, Doc. #132, and therefore, Ryan’s Motion for Stay and Issuance of a Protective
Order [Doc. #180] is also DENIED.
DATED: October 10, 2012
BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with
a copy of the magistrate’s order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a party
may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge’s order to which objection
was not timely made. The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider such
objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to
be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“a judge of the court
may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that
the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”).