Sherman v. Klenke et al
COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Motion Hearing held on 8/15/2013. For the reasons stated on the record, 102 Plaintiff's Motion for Waiver of Certificate of Review Requirements is DENIED. Within 7 calendar days from todays date, counsel shall file a supplemental brief that updates the factual basis of the 115 Motion to Quash and notices the court if Defendants would like to substantially narrow, withdraw, or stand on the Motion. Plaintiff shall have 7 days to respond from the date the Motion is received. FTR: Courtroom A402 - C. Covington. (ccovi)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
Civil Action: 11-cv-03091-REB-CBS
August 15, 2013
FTR - Reporter Deck - Courtroom A402
Courtroom Deputy: Courtni Covington
MATTHEW RYAN SHERMAN,
Pro Se (appearing by telephone)
WILLIAM KLENKE, et al.,
Jennifer S. Huss
COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER
HEARING: MOTION HEARING
Court in session:
Court calls case. Appearances of counsel and pro se Plaintiff.
The court addresses the parties regarding Plaintiff’s MOTION for Waiver of Certificate of
Review Requirement [Doc. No. 102, filed 5/20/2013].
The court notes the Motion has been fully briefed but no counsel appear for Defendants Correctional
Health Partners. Plaintiff states he does not feel oral argument is needed. Discussion regarding the
certificate of review issue and relevant case law.
The court states it will treat the Motion as a non-dispositive Motion for Reconsideration.
For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff’s MOTION for Waiver of
Certificate of Review Requirement [Doc. No. 102, filed 5/20/2013] is
The court clarifies that it is ruling from the bench and Plaintiff has 14 days from today’s date to file
The court moves next to Defendants’ MOTION to Quash in Part [Doc. No. 115, filed 7/29/2013].
Discussion between the court and Ms. Huss regarding Defendants’ partial objection to the
subpoenas. Counsel states that a restricted version of the Clinical Standards is being withheld for
security reasons. Defense counsel provides a copy for in camera review and engages in discussion
with the court regarding if the entire document poses a security risk. The court suggests counsel
further consult with the Colorado Department of Corrections to determine what portions can be
Discussion between the court and Ms. Huss regarding Plaintiff’s request for grievances and how the
Colorado Department of Corrections can search those grievances.
Discussion between the court and Mr. Sherman regarding his response to the Motion to Quash and
the burden being placed on a non-party to conduct a manual search of grievances related to
Defendants Klenke and Montoya.
Within 7 calendar days from today’s date, Ms. Huss shall file a
supplemental brief that updates the factual basis of the Motion to Quash and
notices the court if Defendants would like to substantially narrow, withdraw,
or stand on the Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 7 days to respond from the date the Motion is received.
The court addresses Mr. Sherman regarding its concern that his subpoena requests are too broad.
Discussion between the court and the parties regarding expanding the subpoena to include Defendant
Klenke’s contractor as a party to be searched. The court states without Plaintiff providing a name
of the contractor, the court cannot modify the subpoena in the absence of that information.
The court addresses the parties regarding the discovery deadline currently set, the amount and type
of discovery that has been completed, and whether the parties anticipate the use of experts. Both
parties believe they will finish discovery by the cut-off date.
Court in recess:
Total time in court: 00:50
To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303)
825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.
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?