Pace v. Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District et al

Filing 78

Courtroom Minutes for Motion Hearing held on 1/9/2012 before Judge Richard P. Matsch. ORDERED: Court states the deposition of Lindquist is permitted for the limited purpose as stated on record. Plaintiff's waiver contention is denied. Court s tates the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Babgate Capital (bond co.) is permitted for the limited purpose as stated on record. Defendants Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District, Larry Bishop And Janice Pizzi's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Supplem ental Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents 61 , is resolved by agreement. Plaintiff's Motion to Quash or Motion for Protective Order Narrowing Subpoena for School Records Pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(III) 62 , motion terminated as ruling deferred. Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents, or in the Alternative, Request for in Camera Inspection of Documents and Entry of Protective Order 65 , is resolved by Court's instruction. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Geoffrey Lindquist and Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Susemihl, Mcdermott, and Cowan under Rule 37(a) 66 , is granted in part and denied in part as stated on rec ord. Plaintiff's Second Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline 67 , is granted and the discovery deadline is extended to February 10, 2012. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment 75 on or before March 2, 2012.( Discovery due by 2/10/2012.). (FTR: K. Terasaki) (rpmcd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Date:
January 9, 2012
Courtroom Deputy:
J. Chris Smith
FTR Technician:
Kathy Terasaki
____________________________________________________________________________________
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01081-RPM
RONALD R. PACE,

Trocom E. Williams

Plaintiff,
v.
WOODMEN HILLS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT,
a political subdivision of the State of Colorado,
LARRY BISHOP, and
JANICE L. PIZZI

William T. O’Connell, III
Evan D. Ela

Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________________________
COURTROOM MINUTES
____________________________________________________________________________________
Hearing on Pending Motions
2:30 p.m.

Court in session.

Court’s preliminary remarks.
2:34 p.m.
Mr. O’Connell identifies issues that have been resolved with respect to defendant’s
motion to compel [61].
Mr. O’Connell states the remaining outstanding requests concern issues with respect to damages.
2:43 p.m.

Argument by Mr. Williams.

Court states the deposition of Lindquist is permitted for the limited purpose as stated on record.
Plaintiff’s waiver contention is denied.
3:04 p.m.
3:10 p.m.

Rebuttal argument by Mr. O’Connell.
Further argument by Mr. Williams.

Court states the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Babgate Capital (bond co.)is permitted for the limited
purpose as stated on record.
Further argument by Mr. O’Connell.

January 9, 2012
10-cv-01081-RPM
Argument by Mr. Ela.
ORDERED:

Defendants Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District, Larry Bishop And Janice Pizzi’s
Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendants’ First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents [61], is resolved by
agreement.

ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Motion for Protective Order Narrowing Subpoena
for School Records Pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(III) [62], motion terminated as
ruling deferred.

ORDERED:

Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents, r in the Alternative, Request for
in Camera Inspection of Documents and Entry of Protective Order [65], is resolved
by Court’s instruction.

ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Geoffrey Lindquist and
Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Susemihl, Mcdermott, and
Cowan under Rule 37(a) [66], is granted in part and denied in part as stated on
record.

ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline [67], is granted and the
discovery deadline is extended to February 10, 2012.

ORDERED:

Plaintiff shall respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment [75] on or
before March 2, 2012.

3:22 p.m.

Court in recess.

Hearing concluded. Total time: 52 min.

2