Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 67

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 63 Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Discovery; denying 64 Motion for Discovery; and denying 65 Motion for Order, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/25/12.(mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
Extend Discovery [Docket No. 63; Filed April 24, 2012] (the “Motion to Extend”); on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery [Docket No. 64; Filed April 24, 2012]; and on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Order to Keep the 30(6)(b) on the EEOC and Bryan Kuhn and Give Other
Interrogatories Under Rule 33 [Docket No. 65; Filed April 24, 2012] (the “Motion for
Order”).
With respect to the Motion to Extend [#63], the Court has repeatedly reminded
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, that she must comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. See
[#36, #42, #45, #52]. Again, that Local Rule 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.
Thus, Plaintiff must speak to opposing counsel about her requests to the Court before she
files motions, unless, as the Local Rule states, such motion is made pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or 56, which involve motions to dismiss and motions for
summary judgment. Plaintiff must also tell the Court in her motions whether opposing
counsel opposes the relief she requests or whether opposing counsel agrees to the relief
she requests. Accordingly,

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Extend [#63] is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may again file her request for an extension of time after she has
spoken with opposing counsel about her request.
With respect to the Motion for Discovery [#64] and the Motion for Order [#65],
Plaintiff seeks the Court’s permission to engage in various forms of discovery. However,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 and 33, Plaintiff does not need to seek the
Court’s permission to engage in such discovery, as long as such discovery is conducted
in accordance with the Scheduling Order that governs this case. See Scheduling Order
[#37]. As the Court discussed at the hearing on April 23, 2012, pursuant to Rule 33,
Plaintiff may serve up to twenty-five interrogatories on Defendant (which includes any
person currently working for Defendant) by giving the interrogatories directly to Defendant’s
counsel without also giving them to the Court. Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), if Plaintiff
chooses to take a deposition of Defendant, she must give Defendant a notice that
describes “with reasonable particularity the matters for examination,” and Defendant may
choose the person or persons to attend the deposition who can best answer Plaintiff’s
questions. Plaintiff must also provide a location to take the deposition and pay a court
reporter to make a transcript of the deposition. Plaintiff does not need to give the notice
of deposition to the Court or ask the Court’s permission to take the deposition. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Discovery [#64] and Motion for Order
[#65] are DENIED, because Plaintiff does not need the Court’s permission to take the
actions requested.

Dated: April 25, 2012

2