Smith v. United Parcel Service

Filing 74

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 1/17/2013. The court DENIES 70 Motion for Order. FTR: Robin Mason. (cbscd, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer Civil Action: 12-cv-01578-LTB-CBS Date: January 17, 2013 FTR - Reporter Deck-Courtroom A402 Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason Parties: Counsel: MATTHEW ALAN SMITH, Pro Se Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Joseph Neguse Defendant. COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER HEARING: TELEPHONIC MOTION HEARING Court in Session: 2:31 p.m. Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. The court addresses the parties regarding the plaintiff’s MOTION for Increase of Admission Request Limit (Docket No. 70, filed on 1/4/2013). Discussion between the court and Mr. Smith regarding his motion, the request for admission included with the motion, why he needs more than 25 requests for admission, interrogatories, and Rule 26(b)(2)(c) pertaining to limiting the frequency of discovery. ORDERED: The court DENIES the plaintiff's MOTION for Increase of Admission Request Limit (Docket No. 70, filed on 1/4/2013). Discussion between the court and Mr. Smith regarding the filing of a motion seeking leave to serve additional requests for admission. The court advises Mr. Smith that his motion seeking leave must demonstrate good cause. Discussion between the court and the parties regarding taking Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, what discovery the parties still need, Rule 35, the April 1, 2013 discovery cut off date, and how to best move this case forward. HEARING CONCLUDED. Court in recess: Total time in court: 3:25 p.m. 00:54 To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?