Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 73

MINUTE ORDER striking 68 Motion to add Xcel in on this law suit, striking 69 Motion to add Xcel for access to documents and to answer my questions, and 70 Motion to the Court to Subpoena Jim Downin and Adam Pena and Lois to Court, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/17/12.(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 to add Xcel in on this law suit
[Docket No. 68; Filed May 16, 2012]; on Plaintiff’s A Motion to add Xcel for access to
documents and to answer my questions [Docket No. 69; Filed May 16, 2012]; and on
Plaintiff’s A Motion to [ ] the Court to Subpoena Jim Downin and Adam Pena and Lois
to Court [Docket No. 70; Filed May 16, 2012] (collectively, the “Motions”).
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, #67]. 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, she is filing a motion to dismiss or a motion
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. Plaintiff has also been warned that motions that do not comply with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. would be summarily stricken from the record. See, e.g., Order
[#52] at 2. Accordingly,

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions [#68, #69, #70] are STRICKEN. Plaintiff
may again file her requests after she has complied with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. as outlined
above.

Dated: May 17, 2012

2