Romero v. Dayton-Hudson Corporation

Filing 28

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 23 Plaintiff's Partially Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Disclosures, and denying without prejudice 26 the Stipulated Motion to Modify Deadlines for Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/7/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01362-WYD-MEH
FLORENCE M. ROMERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAYTON-HUDSON CORPORATION, a
CORPORATION, a/k/a TARGET STORES,

Minnesota

corporation,

a/k/a

TARGET

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 7, 2011.
The Stipulated Motion to Modify Deadlines for Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) [filed December 5,
2011; docket #26] is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 6.1D,
which provides in part that “[a]ny motion for extension of time shall ... state a date certain for the
requested extension of time.” The parties’ suggested deadlines are vague, do not follow the format
of the governing Scheduling Order, and do not consider the current discovery cutoff, dispositive
motions deadline and final pretrial conference date.
In light of her withdrawal, the Plaintiff’s Partially Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time
for Filing Disclosures [filed November 29, 2011; docket #23] is denied as moot.