Martinez v. Adams County School District 14 et al
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Final Pretrial Conference held on 4/30/2012. A Trial Preparation Conference is set for 10/12/2012 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 701 before Judge Philip A. Brimmer. The five (5 ) day Jury Trial is set to began on 10/29/2012 08:00 AM in Courtroom A 701 before Judge Philip A. Brimmer. The defendants 76 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) is WITHDRAWN with out prejudice. The parties shall submit a new proposed Final Pretrial Order by May 9,2012 which shall include a brief statement as to what each witness plans to say. Parties are to contact Judge Brimmer's chambers to request new trial dates. (FTR: Robin Mason) (cbscd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
Civil Action: 11-cv-00372-PAB-CBS
Date: April 30, 2012
FTR - Reporter Deck-Courtroom A402
Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason
Cathy L. Cooper
ADAMS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 14,
John D. Keen
Lawrence L. Lee
COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER
HEARING: FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
Court in Session:
Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.
Counsel review the proposed final pretrial order with the court.
Discussion regarding some issues with the submitted Final Pretrial Order, Judge Brimmer’s
practice standards, and the Local Rules pertaining to the specific listing of witnesses in the Final
Pretrial Order. The court advises that a new Final Pretrial Order will need to be submitted to
include more information pertaining to the witnesses. The parties advises that this could be done
by May 9, 2012. The court advises the parties that upon receipt and review of the new Final
Pretrial Order, the court will sign it without requiring any hearing if there are no further issues.
If there are issues the court will set a hearing with the parties to addresses them.
The court addresses the parties regarding the defendant’s MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Second
Supplemental Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) (Docket No. 76, filed on
4/19/2012). The court recognizes that plaintiff’s counsel has not yet had a chance to respond to
this motion. The court advises that the problem with this motion is that it fails to comply with
Local Rule 7.1(a) pertaining to certification.
Discussion regarding Rule 26(a) disclosures, disclosing documents within ones possession in
accordance with Rule 26(a)(1), supplementing disclosures in accordance with Rule 26(e), and
failing to comply with disclosure rules (Rule 37(c)).
Mr. Keen addresses the court regarding the Freedom of Information Act and engages in
discussion with the court. Mr. Keen advises the court that he would like to withdraw this motion
and file a new motion.
The court advises the parties that their Trial is set to begin on October 29, 2012 at 8:00 a.m.
and that a Trial Preparation Conference is set for October 12, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. Discussion
regarding Mr. Keen’s conflict with the trial dates given. The court advises that the parties put
together a conference call to Judge Brimmer’s chambers in order to request new dates.
Discussion between the court and Ms. Cooper regarding requests for production already served,
interrogatories, Rule 34, and related case law.
ORDERED: The defendant’s MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Disclosures
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) (Docket No. 76, filed on 4/19/2012) is
WITHDRAWN without prejudice. The parties shall submit a new proposed
Final Pretrial Order by May 9,2012 which shall include a brief statement as to
what each witness plans to say. Parties are to contact Judge Brimmer’s chambers
to request new trial dates.
Court in recess:
Total time in court:
To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at
(303) 825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?