Miller v. Lusk et al

Filing 116

ORDER denying 112 Motion for Order Regarding Doc. 110 Or, in the Alternative, for Modification of Scheduling Order. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/25/13.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03365-RBJ-BNB
DANIEL BRENT MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORPERAL LUSK, Teller Sheriff,
DEPUTY BAST, Teller Sheriff,
DEPUTY ODELL, Teller Sheriff, and
DEPUTY MARTINEZ, Teller Sheriff,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on Defendants’ Motion for Order Regarding Doc. 110 Or, in the
Alternative, for Modification of Scheduling Order [Doc. #112, filed 07/25/2013] (the
“Motion”). The Motion [Doc. # 112] is DENIED.
On July 2, 2013, the defendants filed a motion requesting leave of court to allow the
deposition of the plaintiff [Doc. #104]. I granted the motion and permitted the defendants to
depose the plaintiff on or before August 2, 2013 [Doc. #106]. The plaintiff filed an objection to
my order [Doc. #110]. Based on the objection, the defendants request that the court issue an
order directing the plaintiff to participate in his deposition or, in the alternative, to extend the
discovery deadlines. I have already entered an order granting leave to depose the plaintiff. The
plaintiff’s objection to my order does not stay the deposition, D.C.COLO.LCivR 30.2, and the
plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order may expose him to the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Order Regarding Doc. 110 Or, in the
Alternative, for Modification of Scheduling Order [Doc. #112] is DENIED.
Dated July 25, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2