Barwick v. Behnke, et al

Filing 39

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 37 Plaintiff's Motion Objecting to the Defendant's, Fed.R.Civ P. [sic] 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/5/11.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00355-PAB-KLM
DARWYNN L. BARWICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY BEHNKE, D.P.O. No. 96003, and
MICHEAL MAY, D.P.O. No. 00045,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion Objecting to the
Defendant’s, Fed.R.Civ P. [sic] 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures . . .” [Docket No. 37; Filed
December 2, 2011] (the “Motion”). The Motion does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.1A., which provides as follows:
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.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A.
The Court notes that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b) and 34(b)(2), objections to
written discovery requests need not be submitted to the Court. To the extent that Plaintiff
claims that the interrogatories seek information which is not relevant to the subject matter
of the litigation, he should make written objections in response to the interrogatories and
transmit his responses, with the objections, directly to counsel for Defendants.
Dated: December 5, 2011