National Association of Investors Corporation v. Bivio, Inc.

Filing 43

MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion Re: Modifying Scheduling Order, granting 33 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Add Additional Party, and denying without prejudice 31 Defendant' ;s Motion to Compel Discovery. The Settlement Conference set for 11/8/2010 is vacated. The parties shall first conference together and then call Chambers at [phone] on or before 11/12/2010, to reschedule. Defendant is hereby ordered to file a n Amended Answer and Counterclaim identical to that at docket #33-1 but without the highlighted changes, on or before Tuesday, 11/9/2010. The Court directs the parties to submit a Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order indicating what changes in the Scheduling Order are needed on or before 11/12/2010. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/5/2010. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-00567-REB-MEH NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INVESTORS CORPORATION, a Michigan non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. BIVIO, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 5, 2010. Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion Re: Modifying Scheduling Order [filed November 5, 2010; docket #38] is granted. The Settlement Conference set for November 8, 2010, is vacated. The parties shall first conference together and then call Chambers at [phone] on or before November 12, 2010, to reschedule. Plaintiff represents that it does not oppose Defendant's motion seeking amendment of its answer. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Add Additional Party [filed October 21, 2010; docket #33] is granted. Defendant is hereby ordered to file an Amended Answer and Counterclaim identical to that at docket #33-1 but without the highlighted changes, on or before Tuesday, November 9, 2010. Plaintiff further represents that it does not oppose the relief requested in Defendant's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order [filed October 22, 2010; docket #35], however, that relief is premised on Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery [filed October 19, 2010; docket #31]. In consideration of the entry of Defendant's Amended Answer and Plaintiff's representation that it does not oppose the relief requested in the motion to modify, the Court denies without prejudice Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery [filed October 19, 2010; docket #31].1 The Court directs the parties to submit a Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order indicating what changes in the Scheduling Order are needed on or before November 12, 2010.

Defendant may re-file its motion to compel if cause still exists after further conferral with Plaintiff and submission of a joint motion to modify the scheduling order.

1