Allen v. Allen et al

Filing 86

MINUTE ORDER granting 84 Defendants Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Discovery by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/30/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02207-CMA-MJW
SHAWN D. ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
N.
C.
A.
K.
A.
K.
C.

ALLEN,
FLORY,
COSNER,
NORDELL,
MEDINA,
SOKOL, and
TUTTLE,

Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order
Regarding Discovery (Docket No. 84) is granted as set forth below. The court notes
that pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(C), “‘[n]othing in this rule precludes a judicial
officer from ruling on a motion at any time after it is filed.”
Pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered by this court on March 8, 2011 (Docket
No. 37), “Plaintiff shall have 25 interrogatories, 25 requests for production and 25
requests for admission.” (Docket No. 37 at 9). In addition, in the Courtroom
Minutes/Minute Order issued right after the Scheduling Conference, this court ordered,
“Each side shall be limited to twenty-five (25) Interrogatories, twenty five (25) Requests
for Production, and twenty-five (25) Requests for Admission, without leave of court.”
(Docket No. 36 at 2) (emphasis added). A copy of the Scheduling Order and the
Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order was sent to the plaintiff. Despite that clear language,
plaintiff propounded a total of 135 interrogatories, 66 requests for production, and 119
requests for admission. (See Docket Nos. 84-1, 84-2, 84-3). In a Notice of Motion to
Compel Discovery that plaintiff sent to defense counsel (Docket No. 84-4), plaintiff
asserts that “Defendants [sic] refuse to answer my timely discovery request asserting
that I am to divide the 25 request amongst the 7 defendants in this civil action preposurous [sic] . . . . No where does it state I am not permitted by the U.S. courts
local rules or Fed. R. Civ. P to seek 25 discovery request from each defendant. ” Such

2
an assertion, however, is belied by the Scheduling Order, the Courtroom
Minutes/Minute Order, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A) (“By order, the court may alter
the limits in these rules on the number of depositions and interrogatories . . . .”).
The court further notes that in his Notice of Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket
No. 84-4), plaintiff states that his “deposition is on hold until this matter is resolved.”
This court, however, has ordered that “[a]ll depositions including the experts shall be
completed by October 14, 2011.” (Docket No. 37 at 7; see also Docket No. 37 at 2 [“All
depositions, fact and expert witnesses, shall be completed no later than OCTOBER 14,
2011.”]). Defendants note in the instant motion that plaintiff’s deposition is currently
scheduled for October 13, 2011. (Docket No. 84 at 2).
Based on the foregoing, it is further ORDERED that on or before October 17,
2011, plaintiff shall resubmit only twenty-five (25) interrogatories, twenty-five (25)
requests for production of documents, and twenty-five (25) requests for admission to
defendants in total (not to each defendant) or instruct defendants which twenty-five
interrogatories, documents, and admissions plaintiff would like answered from those
already submitted. It is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s deposition shall proceed as scheduled on
October 13, 2011. Plaintiff’s failure to proceed with that noticed deposition may very
well result in the imposition of sanctions, which could include a recommendation to
Judge Arguello that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Furthermore, plaintiff is
cautioned that any threatening communications to defendants and defense counsel
could very well also result in the imposition of sanctions, which could include a
recommendation to Judge Arguello that this action be dismissed with prejudice.

Date: September 30, 2011