Roe v. Karval School District RE23 et al

Filing 29

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 27 Motion to Quash Subpoena in Civil Action by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 08/02/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00239-WYD-KLM
JANICE ROE,
Plaintiff,
v.
KARVAL SCHOOL DISTRICT RE23,
MARTIN ADAMS, in his personal capacity and in his capacity as Principal of Karval High
School,
ANDREW MCCOLLUM, in his personal capacity and in his capacity as teacher at Karval
High School, and
GEORGE PRICE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Quash Subpoena in Civil Action
[Docket No. 27; Filed August 2, 2012] (the “Motion”). The Motion does not comply with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., which provides as follows:
The court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before
filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to
confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.
The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the
motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should Mr. McBean resubmit his request, he must
comply with the steps for following the Magistrate Judge’s discovery dispute procedure, as
stated below:

1

Step 1: Counsel meaningfully confer regarding one or more discovery disputes
pursuant to Local Rule 7.1A. Counsel may choose to confer about only one dispute
at a time or several disputes at once. This decision is up to counsel, not the Court.
Step 2: If discovery disputes are not resolved, counsel then agree on a mutually
convenient time to call the Court at [phone] for a discovery hearing
regarding all disputes about which they have fully conferred but failed to reach
agreement.
No attorney can insist on contacting the Court for a discovery hearing at a time
when another attorney is not available. If an attorney is not available for a
conference call to the Court for a discovery hearing when contacted by opposing
counsel, s/he must provide opposing counsel with alternate dates and times to
contact the Court. This eliminates the possibility that one party will have an unfair
advantage over another in preparation for a discovery hearing.
The Court is not responsible for assuring that multiple counsel for the same party
are on the line for a telephone hearing. The Court requires only one attorney of
record on the line for each party involved in the dispute. If counsel for a party want
co-counsel for the same party to participate in the telephone hearing, they are
responsible for ensuring that co-counsel are available to participate on the date and
time chosen by them for the hearing.
The Court will not continue hearings based on the sudden unavailability of
co-counsel for a party. As long as each party involved in the dispute is represented
by at least one attorney of record, the hearing will proceed.
Step 3: When counsel call the Court for the discovery hearing, the judge’s law clerks
will ask counsel questions relating to the nature of the dispute. The law clerks will
consult with the judge as necessary. If the judge determines that any documents are
required for review prior to the hearing, counsel will be instructed to email such
documents to the Court’s chambers, and the hearing will be set at a mutually
convenient date and time in the future.
Step 4: If no documents are necessary for review and the judge is immediately
available, the call will be transferred to the courtroom and the hearing will be
conducted. If the judge determines that the matter is complex and briefing is
required, the judge will set a briefing schedule. If the judge is not immediately
available, the hearing will be set at a mutually convenient date and time in the future.
Dated: August 2, 2012

2