Warner et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

Filing 20

Minute ORDER denying 17 Defendant's Notice of Its Unilateral Submission of Proposed Scheduling Order and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees Incurred as a Result of Plaintiffs' Failures to Follow the Federal Rules and This Court's January 4, 2012 Order, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/21/12.(lygsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02657-WYD-KLM
HOMER K. WARNER,
BETTY S. WARNER, and
COREY WARNER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Div. of City Group, Inc.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Notice of Its Unilateral
Submission of Proposed Scheduling Order and Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees
Incurred as a Result of Plaintiffs’ Failures to Follow the Federal Rules and This
Court’s January 4, 2012 Order [Docket No. 17; Filed February 17, 2012] (the “Motion”).
The Motion does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. First, the Court reminds the
parties that Rule 7.1A. requires meaningful negotiations; thus, the Rule is not satisfied by
one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail. See Hoelzel v. First
Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003). Second, defense counsel’s submission
of the proposed scheduling order was admirable and not required by the Local Rules of this
District. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 (“Plaintiff shall prepare the proposed scheduling order,
unless counsel or the pro se parties have agreed otherwise.”). However, defense counsel
could not reasonably have incurred substantial additional time or expense to his client in
doing so than would reasonably have been incurred in conferring with Plaintiffs’ counsel
and providing Defendant’s portions of the proposed scheduling order. Defense counsel
took on very little extra work in submitting the proposed scheduling order. An award of
attorney’s fees is not justified in these circumstances.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is reminded of his obligations pursuant to the applicable Federal
and Local Rules and forewarned that future failures to meet those obligations may result
in the imposition of sanctions.
Dated: February 21, 2012