Santistevan v. USA et al

Filing 122

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 121 Motion to Modify Dispositive Motion Deadline. Dispositive Motions due by 7/16/2012. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/12/12 is VACATED and reset to 9/18/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 501 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/26/12.(cmacd )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-cv-01649-MEH-BNB ROSE A. SANTISTEVAN, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a municipality; RICHARD MYERS, in his official capacity as Colorado Springs Chief of Police; JIMMY RODGERS, in his official and individual capacity; PHIL GURNETT, in his individual capacity; JACKSON ANDREWS, in his official and individual capacity; KEN MOORE, in his individual capacity; BRIAN MATTISON, in his individual capacity; OWEN MCCORMACK, in his individual capacity; JEFFERY KRAMMER, in his individual capacity; MARCUS MILLER, in his individual capacity; SCOTT ROBBLEE, in his individual capacity; JOHN DAVID, in his individual capacity; JASON HESS, in his individual capacity; KIMBLE GINGRICH, in his individual capacity; and OTHER UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT, in their official and personal capacities, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 26, 2012. The (Second) Unopposed Motion to Modify Dispositive Motion Deadline [filed June 21, 2012; docket #121] filed by Defendants Phil Gurnett, Ken Moore, Brian Mattison, Owen McCormack, Jeffery Krammer, Marcus Miller, Scott Robblee, John David, Jason Hess, and Kimble Gingrich (self-described “County Defendants”) is granted in part and denied in part as follows. For good cause shown, the Dispositive Motion Deadline is extended to July 16, 2012. Absent an order from the Court stating otherwise, all briefing on motions for summary judgment shall be governed by the default provisions of D.C. Colo. LCivR 56.1A. In light of this modification, the Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for September 12, 2012, is hereby vacated and rescheduled for September 18, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom A501 on the fifth floor of the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties shall submit their proposed pretrial order, pursuant to District of Colorado Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures V.L. no later than five (5) business days prior to the pretrial conference. The proposed pretrial order to be submitted to the Magistrate Judge under the ECF Procedures must be submitted in a useable format (i.e., WordPerfect or Word only) and shall be emailed to the Magistrate Judge at Hegarty_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov. Attorneys and/or pro se parties not participating in ECF shall submit their proposed pretrial order on paper to the Clerk’s Office. However, if any party in this case is participating in ECF, it is the responsibility of that party to submit the proposed pretrial order pursuant to the District of Colorado ECF Procedures. All out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.3C prior to the pretrial conference. The parties shall prepare the proposed pretrial order in accordance with the form which may be downloaded from the forms section of the court’s website at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx. Instructions for downloading are posted in the forms section of the website. The parties are further advised that they shall not assume that the court will grant the relief requested in any motion. Failure to appear at a court-ordered conference or to comply with a courtordered deadline which has not be vacated by court order may result in the imposition of sanctions. Please remember that anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo identification. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.2B. 2

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?