Sullivan et al v. Delta Enterprise, Corp.

Filing 55

MINUTE ORDER Denying 42 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Denying 50 Motion for Status Conference and for Expedited Ruling. Denying 51 Motion for Status Conference and for Expedited Ruling. Denying 52 Motion for Status Conference and for Expedited Ruling. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/13/2012.(mjwcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW
AMANDA SULLIVAN, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Kiera Sullivan, a minor, deceased,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
DELTA ENTERPRISE, CORP.,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 42) is
DENIED for the following reasons. I have reviewed Plaintiff’s interrogatories 3, 6, 18
and 24 and Request for Production Nos. 7 and 21 and the answers and responses to
such interrogatories and requests for production by Defendant. I have also reviewed
Defendant’s letter date June 8, 2012, to Plaintiff’s counsel [exhibit B attached to
Response docket no. 49]. After reviewing the same, I find that Defendant has fully
answered Plaintiff’s interrogatories 4, 6, 18 and 24 and fully responded to Plaintiff’s
Request for Production Nos. 7 and 21. As to that portion of Plaintiff’s interrogatory 3
which relates to photographs taken by Defendant’s consulting expert, I find such
photographs by the consulting expert are protected by the work product doctrine. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D).
It is FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Conference with Court
and Request for Expedited Ruling (docket nos. 50, 51, and 52) is DENIED. This court
has now ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 42) and there is no need for
an expedited hearing. Moreover, as to the pending motion captioned “Delta Enterprise,
Corp.’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Plaintiff’s Third Amended Notices of Videotaped
Depositions (docket no. 47),” such motion was filed with the court on July 6, 2012, and it
not yet ripe for ruling. Furthermore, the discovery cut-off date in this case is November
19, 2012, and the parties have several months before the close of discovery.
Date: July 13, 2012