Robinette et al v. Schirard et al

Filing 249

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 9/10/14. Motion for Stay of Discovery 238 is DENIED as moot. Second Motion Asking Why Defense Attorney's Jonathan A. Cross & Sean J. Lane Are Not Responding to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix's April 1st 2014 Minute Order Document 219. Refer to Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline Was July 2nd 2014, to Rebuttal Against Plaintiff's Interrogatories & Request for Admission and Why Defendant Attorney's Are Not Responding to Plaintiff's Motion Asking Why [sic] 240 is GRANTED. Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 245 is DENIED. (lgale)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02172-CMA-KLM
BONNER ROBINETTE, and
SHIRLEY ROBINETTE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOBBIE FENDER, in his individual and professional capacities,
AMBER FENDER, in her individual and professional capacities,
STEVE SCHMIDT, in his individual and professional capacities,
SEAN SMITH, in his individual and professional capacities, and
CHARLES HAMBY, in his individual and professional capacities,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Discovery [#238]
(the “Motion for Stay”); on Plaintiffs’ Second Motion Asking Why Defense Attorney’s
Jonathan A. Cross & Sean J. Lane Are Not Responding to Magistrate Judge Kristen
L. Mix’s April 1st 2014 Minute Order Document 219. Refer to Rebuttal Expert
Disclosure Deadline Was July 2nd 2014, to Rebuttal Against Plaintiff’s
Interrogatories & Request for Admission and Why Defendant Attorney’s Are Not
Responding to Plaintiff’s Motion Asking Why [sic] [#240] (which the Court construes as
a “Motion to Clarify”); and on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#245] (the “Motion to Strike”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Stay [#238] is DENIED as moot, as
the discovery deadline expired on September 2, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Clarify [#240] is GRANTED to the
extent that the Court clarifies as follows. The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline was the
deadline by which the parties must designate any experts who shall rebut the opinions
provided by any affirmative experts designated by the parties. No party is required to
designate a rebuttal expert, and no rebuttal expert may be designated in the absence of
an affirmative expert having been first designated by the opposing party. Accordingly,
-1-

Defendants were not required to do anything by the July 2, 2014 rebuttal expert disclosure
deadline. The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline has nothing to do with responding to
written discovery requests.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike [#245] is DENIED. Plaintiffs
responded to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment approximately ten days after the
deadline set in the Local Rules without having asked for an extension of time. While the
Court may strike Plaintiffs’ Response in its discretion, the Tenth Circuit has a strong
preference for adjudicating matters on the merits. See Lee v. Max Int’l, LLC, 638 F.3d
1318, 1321 (10th Cir. 2011). In the absence of any alleged prejudice to Defendants, the
Court therefore determines that the merits of the briefing on the Motion for Summary
Judgment should be fully considered to the extent it is proper to do so.
Dated: September 10, 2014

-2-