Burris et al v. US Bank National Association et al

Filing 74

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion for an order allowing certain witnesses to testify at trial by telephone 68 is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo.LCivR 7.1A. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/9/2012.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00670-REB-MEH
MARK BURRIS, and
LORI BURRIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOSIATION [sic], as trustee for the BS Alta 2006-3,
GMAC BANK, and
JOHN AND JANE DOES, unknown owners of securitized note,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 9, 2012.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for an order allowing certain witnesses to testify at trial by telephone [filed
March 7, 2012; docket #68] is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo.
LCivR 7.1A, which 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, 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).