Hermann v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 86

ORDER granting 78 Motion to Continue Trial Date. Approving and adopting 82 Report and Recommendations. Trial Preparation Conference Order 12 is AMENDED and SUPPLEMENTED Telephonic setting conference set 12/17/2012 09:30 AM to reschedule the trial preparation conference and trial. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 12/11/12. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-03188-REB-MEH
JOHN HERMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Hartford Casualty Insurance
Company’s Unopposed Motion To Continue Trial and Related Deadlines [#78]1
filed November 8, 2012; and (2) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#82] filed November 15, 2012. I adopt the recommendation and grant the
motion.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has outlined four
primary factors that should be considered to determine if a continuance is necessary.
See, e.g., Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.,175 F.3d 1221, 1230
(10th Cir. 1999) (citing U.S. v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1469 (10th Cir. 1987) (listing
factors)). The key relevant factors are
(1) the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; (2) the likelihood
1

“[#78]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

that the continuance, if granted, would accomplish the purpose underlying
the party’s expressed need for the continuance; (3) the inconvenience to
the opposing party, its witnesses, and the court resulting from the
continuance; [and] (4) the need asserted for the continuance and the harm
that [movant] might suffer as result of the district court’s denial of the
continuance.
United States v. Rivera, 900 F.2d 1462, 1475 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States
v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987)). On balance, these factors weigh in
favor of a continuance.
As the magistrate judge summarizes in his recommendation, certain limited
discovery concerning the plaintiff’s expert witness is not yet complete. Despite the
diligent and good faith efforts of the parties, the parties will not be able to complete this
discovery before the time of the trial preparation conference and trial as currently set.
As a result, the trial preparation conference set for December 21, 2012, and the trial
date set for January 7, 2013, must be vacated and re-set.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#82] filed
November 15, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s Unopposed Motion To
Continue Trial and Related Deadlines [#78] filed November 8, 2012, is GRANTED;
3. That the trial preparation conference set for December 21, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.
and the trial set to begin on January 7, 2013, are VACATED;
4. That the Trial Preparation Conference Order [#12] entered January 27,
2012, is AMENDED and SUPPLEMENTED accordingly;

2

5. That counsel SHALL contact the court’s administrative assistant, Susan
Schmitz, at [phone] on December 17, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., to reschedule the
trial preparation conference and trial; and
6. That counsel for the plaintiff shall arrange, initiate, and coordinate the
conference call necessary to facilitate the setting conference.
Dated December 11, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3