Chevron Corporation v. Stratus Consulting, Inc. et al

Filing 214

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 211 Plaintiffs' Motion to Adjust Briefing Scheduling and for Production of Complete Evidence used by Chevron in Docket #205. The Ecuadorian Plaintiffs and Stratus Respondents may respond to Ch evron's pending Emergency Motion for Expedited Order... [filed August 5, 2010; docket #205] on or before August 13, 2010. Petitioner Chevron may reply in support of its motion on or before August 19, 2010. Regarding the portion of this motion s eeking to compel production of the Crude outtakes,the Court finds that this request is premature and does not meet the conferral requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Moreover, there is no indication that the Plaintiffs have sought to subpoena Mr. Berlinger nor that the Plaintiffs filed a motion before Judge Kaplan in New York, as referred to within their motion. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 8/9/2010. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-00047-MSK-MEH CHEVRON CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. STRATUS CONSULTING, INC., DAVID J. CHAPMAN, DOUGLAS BELTMAN, JENNIFER M.H. PEERS, DAVID M. MILLS, PETER N. JONES, LAURA BELANGER, and ANN S. MAEST, Respondents. REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, et al., Interested Parties. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 9, 2010. Plaintiffs' Motion to Adjust Briefing Schedule and for Production of Complete Evidence Used by Chevron in Dkt. #205 [filed August 6, 2010; docket #211] is granted in part and denied without prejudice in part as follows. The Ecuadorian Plaintiffs and Stratus Respondents may respond to Chevron's pending Emergency Motion for Expedited Order . . . [filed August 5, 2010; docket #205] on or before August 13, 2010. Petitioner Chevron may reply in support of its motion on or before August 19, 2010. The Court will review the briefing and determine whether to hold a telephonic hearing during the week of August 23. The Court believes that this schedule accommodates the parties' interests as related to the 45-day deadline set by the Ecuadorian court. Regarding the portion of this motion seeking to compel production of the Crude outtakes, the Court finds that this request is premature and does not meet the conferral requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Moreover, there is no indication that the Plaintiffs have sought to subpoena Mr. Berlinger nor that the Plaintiffs filed a motion before Judge Kaplan in New York, as referred to within their motion.