Scott v. City and County of Denver, The

Filing 28

ORDER: 25 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is GRANTED IN PART. Discovery due by 1/14/2013. Dispositive Motions due by 1/14/2013. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/2/12.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB
MAJOR JON MICHAEL SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [Doc. # 25,
filed 7/31/2012] (the “Motion for Extension”), which is GRANTED IN PART as specified.
The parties seek essentially a 60 day extension of all pretrial deadlines, including the
dispositive motion deadline. As grounds, the parties assert:
(1) The plaintiff filed a motion to compel production (on July 27, 2012) which has been
set for hearing on August 28, 2012. Consequently, “[p]laintiff will not receive any documents
that may result from such motion until after that time,” Motion for Extension [Doc. # 25] at ¶2;
(2) Defendant’s counsel “is not available to defend any deposition until late August,” id.
at ¶3; and
(3) Plaintiff’s counsel have a trial in another matter beginning September 4, 2012,
scheduled for three weeks. “Plaintiff’s counsel will thus be preparing for trial in late August,
and will not be available for depositions until late September or early October.” Id. at ¶4
(original emphasis).

Generally, “press of other business” does not constitute good cause to modify a
scheduling order. MSK Civ. Practice Standards II.G. In addition, with respect to the request to
extend the dispositive motion deadline by 60 days:
Requests for modification of deadlines set by the Scheduling
Order will be referred to the Magistrate Judge for resolution.
However, any request to extend the dispositive motion deadline
more than 30 days beyond the deadline originally set in the
initial Scheduling Order must show exceptional circumstances
warranting the extension.
Trial Preparation Order--Civil [Doc. # 15] at p. 2 (original emphasis); accord Scheduling Order
[Doc. # 14] at pp. 6, 13.
Any timing issues arising from the plaintiff’s motion to compel are of the plaintiff’s
making. Although the discovery to which the motion to compel is directed was served on March
28, 2012, the motion was not filed until July 27, 2012, approximately four months later. The
hearing on the motion to compel is set to occur approximately one month after the motion was
filed, which allows the defendant a reasonable amount of time to respond and the court time to
prepare for the hearing.
I do not approve of the parties’ apparent agreement to postpone depositions until “late
August” due to defense counsel’s scheduling conflicts. If counsel is too busy to meet its
obligations in this case, he should obtain the assistance of other members of the City Attorney’s
office or engage co-counsel.
The press of other business, including defense counsel’s unavailability to defend
depositions until late August and plaintiff’s counsel’s obligations in another case, is neither good
cause nor exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify a 60 day extension of deadlines. I will,
however, extend the pretrial deadlines within the limits imposed by the district judge in an
2

attempt to accommodate the parties’ needs.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Motion for Extension [Doc. # 25] is GRANTED IN PART; and

(2)

The Scheduling Order [Doc. # 14] is modified to the following extent:
Discovery Cut-Off:

January 14, 2012.

(All discovery must be completed by the discovery cut-off. All
written discovery must be served so that responses are due on or
before the discovery cut-off.)
Dispositive Motions Deadline:

January 14, 2013.

Expert Disclosures:
(a)

The parties shall designate all experts and provide
opposing counsel with all information specified in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before October 19,
2012;

(b)

The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and
provide opposing counsel with all information
specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before
November 15, 2012.

Dated August 2, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3