Sun River Energy, Inc. v. Nelson et al

Filing 198

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 195 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Extension of Time for Discovery, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/12/2012. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00198-MSK-MEH
SUN RIVER ENERGY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIK S. NELSON,
STEVE STEPHENS, and
CORAL CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 12, 2012.
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Extension of Time for Discovery
[filed April 11, 2012; docket #195] is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R.
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).