Martin v. City and County of Denver

Filing 67

MINUTE ORDER; Defendants' 61 Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED. Plaintif's 65 Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Stay is DENIED without prejudice in part and DENIED as moot in part, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/26/2013.(klmcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01376-PAB-KLM
FREDDIE K. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
DENNIS J. GALLAGHER, Office of the Auditor, in his official and individual capacities,
DAWN SULLEY, Deputy City Auditor, in her official and individual capacities,
KIP MEMMOTT, Director of Audit Services, in his official and individual capacities,
JOHN CARLSON, Deputy Director of Audit Services, in his official and individual capacities,
DAWN HUMES, Internal Audit Supervisor, in her official and individual capacities,
AUDIT SERVICES OF AUDITOR’S OFFICE,
BLAIR MALLOY, CSA Senior Human Resource Professional, in her official and individual
capacities,
BRUCE PLOTKINS, CSA Hearing Officer, in his official and individual capacities, and
CAREER SERVICE AUTHORITY,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings
[Docket No. 61; Filed March 21, 2013] (the “Motion to Stay”) and on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants Two (2) Motions to Dismiss Filed Under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and One (1) Motion to Stay [sic] [Docket No. 65; Filed March 22, 2013]
(the “Motion for Extension”). The Motion to Stay seeks a stay of all proceedings pending
resolution of the Motion to Dismiss [#59]. The Motion is incomplete and premature on
multiple grounds. First, Defendants’ request to stay “all proceedings” is not consistent with
their request to allow resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. Ostensibly, they merely seek a
partial stay and want completion of briefing on the Motion to Dismiss and a determination
by the Court of its merits. Second, Defendants have not informed the Court whether a Rule
26(f)(1) conference has occurred or, if it has not, they have not specifically requested its
continuance. The Rule 26(f)(1) conference triggers the time for making initial disclosures
and the time for commencement of discovery. Thus, until the Rule 26(f)(1) conference is
held, there is no deadline to make disclosures and no party is permitted to conduct
-1-

discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C) and (d). Finally, the Court has already vacated
the Scheduling Conference in this matter until final resolution of the pending Motions to
Dismiss [#57, #59]. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [#61] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension [#65] is DENIED without
prejudice in part and DENIED as moot in part. The Motion for Extension is denied
without prejudice to the extent that it seeks an extension of time to file Responses to the
Motions to Dismiss. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1D. (stating that a request for an extension
of time must “state a date certain for the requested extension of time”). The Motion for
Extension is denied as moot to the extent it seeks an extension of time to respond to the
Motion to Stay [#61].
Dated: March 26, 2013

-2-