Schlecht v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Filing 120

ORDER denying 115 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Response toDefendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/28/13. (bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03072-RM-BNB
VALERIE ANNE SCHLECHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Response to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #115, filed 08/09/2013] (the “Motion”),
which is DENIED.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on April 8, 2013 [Doc. #90]. I
ordered the plaintiff to respond to the motion on or before April 29, 2013 [Doc. #92]. The
plaintiff sought [Doc. #93] and received [Doc. #95] an extension of time to until May 28, 2013.1
On May 28, 2013, the plaintiff sought an extension of time until June 7, 2013 [Doc. #100].2 I
granted the second motion for an extension of time, but I stated that no further extensions would
be granted [Doc. #102].

1

The plaintiff based her first motion for an extension of time on “the plethora of
immaterial facts in dispute and the sheer mountain of incomplete or misdated exhibits in the
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
2

The plaintiff sought her second extension of time because she “has labored under
unusually difficult personal circumstances” including a lack of “stable housing,” and she would
be “unable to obtain the affidavit of her psychologist until . . . about June 6.”

The plaintiff now seeks leave to file an amended response to the Motion for Summary
Judgment. She states that her current response contains “a lack of specificity in her citations to
the record”; she wants to make her response to the defendant’s statement of facts more concise;
she did not properly address all of the defendant’s assertions of fact and would like the
“opportunity to do so”; she has had “a great deal of confusion as to how one addresses or
supports assertions of fact with ‘admissible evidence’ without any determination of what
‘evidence’ is admissible”; and she needs to “provide proper citations for her arguments in order
to clear up some of the confusion about the legal theories she advances.”
The plaintiff is not seeking merely to “amend”her response; she is, in essence, seeking a
third extension of time so that she can prepare a new response. The plaintiff had two months to
prepare her response, and she has been warned that she would not receive any additional
extensions. No good cause for a further extension is shown.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion [Doc. #115] is DENIED.
Dated August 28, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2