Thomas v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company et al

Filing 30

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 28 Defendants' Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Extend Case Deadlines, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/19/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00413-REB-MEH
RUDY THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE COMPANY, and
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 19, 2011.
Defendants’ Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Extend Case Deadlines [filed
September 15, 2011; docket #28] is denied without prejudice for failure to demonstrate good cause
for such lengthy extensions of time. Currently, the scheduling deadlines in this case are tight, but
provide sufficient time for the parties and the Court to properly prepare for trial. Defendants’
proposed deadlines are untenable and fail to provide Judge Blackburn with sufficient time to
consider any dispositive motions before the final pretrial conference takes place in this matter.
In addition, the Court reminds Defendants of their continuing obligations to comply fully
with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, which requires meaningful negotiations by the parties. See Hoelzel
v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003). While phone calls and emails may
constitute a good-faith effort in some instances, in this case, it is unclear when the communications
were made or how long Defendants waited for Plaintiff’s counsel to respond. The Court instructs
the parties to provide sufficient information in their Rule 7.1A certifications to allow the Court to
determine compliance.