Escobar v. Holditch et al

Filing 63

MINUTE ORDER denying 60 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/8/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02050-CMA-KLM
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAJOR C. HOLDITCH,
SERGEANT ROBERTS,
SERGEANT HALSTEAD,
SERGEANT P. BINDER,
C/O CRIDER,
C/O FERGUSON,
C/O MARTIN,
C/O COOPER,
C/O K. VIALPONDO,
C/O ARCHULETA,
C/O A. LOMBARD,
SERGEANT POOL, and
LIEUTENANT T. CHAVEZ,
DOCTOR J. WRIGHT, and
NURSE PRACTITIONER K. BOYD,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Docket No. 60;
Filed July 28, 2011] (the “Motion”). As an initial matter, the Motion does not comply with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1. On several occasions, the Court has
instructed Plaintiff regarding his obligations when filing a motion to compel discovery. The
Court has also warned Plaintiff many times that his failure to satisfy these obligations will
result in summary denial of the motion. Most recently, the Court advised Plaintiff as follows
in Escobar v. Jones, No. 09-cv-02207-CMA-KLM, Docket No. 129 at 2 (D. Colo. July 14,
2011) (unpublished decision) (Minute Order denying a motion to compel) (emphasis
original):
[A]ny motion to compel must comply with all applicable rules, including that
-1-

it must certify that Plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute with Defendants
prior to seeking Court involvement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and
must contain either a verbatim recitation of the discovery requests at issue
or attach a copy of such requests pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1. The
failure to comply with any applicable rule will result in the Motion to
Compel being summarily denied.
Despite the Court’s numerous admonishments, the instant Motion does not contain
a certification that Plaintiff conferred with Defendants, and it does not set out the specific
discovery requests at issue. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
Dated: August 8, 2011

-2-