Independence Institute, The et al v. Buescher

Filing 247

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 243 the Motion to Quash filed by Interested Parties Heidi Verougstraete and National Ballot Access, Inc., by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/7/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00609-PAB-MEH
THE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE,
JON CALDARA,
DENNIS POLHILL,
JESSICA CORRY,
MASON TVERT,
RUSSELL HAAS,
DOUGLAS CAMPBELL,
LOUIS SCHROEDER,
SCOTT LAMM,
DANIEL KENNEDY, and
ALBIE HURST,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCOTT GESSLER, in his official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 7, 2011.
The Motion to Quash filed by Interested Parties Heidi Verougstraete and National Ballot
Access, Inc. [filed September 6, 2011; docket #243] is denied without prejudice for failure to
comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. The Interested Parties represent that they left a
voicemail message for Defendant’s counsel but do not verify conferral. Rather, the Interested
Parties “assumed” Defendant would oppose. See docket #243.
The plain language of D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A states,
The court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the
motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with
opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter. The moving
party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the
specific efforts to comply with this rule.
(emphasis added). The Court reminds the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully
with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 635-636 (D.
Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1A requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not

satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail).

2