Hatch v. Sandgaard et al

Filing 29

MINUTE ORDER denying 24 Renewed Motion for Order Requiring Security, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/17/11.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM
STEPHEN T. HATCH, derivatively, on behalf of Zynex, Inc., formerly known as Zynex
Medical Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS SANDGAARD,
FRITZ G. ALLISON,
TAYLOR SIMONTON,
MARY BETH VITALE, and
Defendants,
ZYNEX, INC., a Nevada corporation,
Nominal Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Taylor Simonton (“Simonton”) and
Mary Beth Vitale’s (“Vitale”) Renewed Motion for Order Requiring Security [Docket No.
24; Filed October 11, 2011] (the “Motion”). For the second time, see Minute Order [#21],
Defendants Simonton and Vitale have failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., which
provides as follows:
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.
The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the
motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.
In the Motion, counsel for Defendants Simonton and Vitale states that on October 11, 2011,
he attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel by electronic mail and by telephone to ascertain
whether Plaintiff objected to the relief requested in the Motion. See Motion [#24] at 2. He
then stated that “Plaintiff’s counsel has not yet replied to those communications.” Id.
-1-

Counsel for Defendants Simonton and Vitale then filed this Motion later the same day. This
does not amount to a “reasonable, good faith effort” to confer. After contacting opposing
counsel about a disputed matter, counsel for the moving party is advised to wait at least
three business days for a response before filing a motion with the Court. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#24] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: October 17, 2011

-2-