Jones v. GEO Group, Inc., The
ORDER denying 28 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, as set forth in the Order. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/9/2013.(mjwcd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02961-REB-MJW
THE GEO GROUP, INC.,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
(Docket No. 28)
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 28).
The court has reviewed the subject motion (docket no. 28), the response (docket no.
34) and the reply (docket no. 38). In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the
court’s file and has considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case
law. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact,
conclusions of law and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:
That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties
to this lawsuit;
That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;
That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to
That in the subject motion (docket no. 28), Plaintiff seeks an Order
from this court compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatories Nos. 3, 6, and 15 and to produce documents in
response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production Nos. 7 and 8;
That Defendant argues that the subject motion (docket no. 28)
should be denied as untimely and because the requests are not
relevant, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
and are unduly burdensome;
That Plaintiff asserts the following claims for relief: (a) racial
discrimination pursuant to Tile VII; (b) racial discrimination pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (c) failure to reasonably accommodate
Plaintiff’s perceived disability in violation of the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008; and, (d) retaliation in violation of the FMLA. See
Amended Complaint (docket no. 9);
That Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no.
20) with the court on November 6, 2012. Plaintiff’s Response
(docket no. 33) was filed with the court on December 14, 2012.
Defendant’s Reply (docket no. 37) was filed with the court on
January 4, 2013. This motion is ripe for ruling and pending before
That on November 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to
Amend the Complaint (docket no. 21) and such motion was denied
on November 29, 2012. See docket no. 30;
That the subject motion (docket no. 28) was filed with the court on
November 29, 2012, some 98 days after the discovery cut-off date.
The discovery cut-off date was August 23, 2012. The proposed
final pretrial order is to be filed with the court by January 15, 2013.
See docket no. 12. The Final Pretrial Conference is set for January
17, 2013. The Trial Preparation Conference is set on February 8,
2013, and the Jury Trial is set to begin on February 25, 2013; and
That the subject motion (docket no. 28) is untimely and Plaintiff has
failed to show any justification or compelling reason for delay in
filing of the subject motion. Centennial Archaeology, Inc. AECOM,
Inc., 688 F.3d 673, 682 (10th Cir. 2012); Spacecon Specialty
Contractors, LLC v. Bensigner, No. 09-cv-02080-REB-KLM, 2011
WL 782677 (D. Colo. Mar. 1, 2011); Norton v. City of Marietta, 432
F. 3d 1145, 1156 (10th Cir. 2005); Butler v. Benson, 193 F.R.D.
664, 666 (D. Colo. 2000) (“ A party cannot ignore available
discovery remedies for months and then, on the eve of trial, move
the court for an order compelling production.”). Accordingly, the
subject motion (docket no. 28) should be denied.
WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this
That Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 28) is DENIED;
That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this
Done this 9th day of January 2013.
BY THE COURT
s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?