Carbajal v. St. Anthony Central Hospital et al

Filing 256

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/30/14. Motion for Extension of Time or Stay of Proceedings Until the Medical and Denver Defendants Comply With [Their] Discovery Obligations [#253] and on Plaintiff's accompanying Declaration of Dean Carbajal 254 is DENIED without prejudice. (lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02257-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. ANTHONY CENTRAL HOSPITAL, a corporation,
CENTURA HEALTH, a corporation,
STEPHAN M. SWAN, Physician Assistant, in his official and individual capacities,
GREGORY J. ENGLUND, Registered Nurse, in his official and individual capacities,
MARCI L. HANSUE, Registered Nurse, in her official and individual capacities,
MICHAEL O’NEILL, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities,
JAY LOPEZ, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and individual
capacities,
LARRY BLACK, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities, and
APEX, a corporation,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time or Stay
of Proceedings Until the Medical and Denver Defendants Comply With [Their]
Discovery Obligations [#253] (the “Motion”) and on Plaintiff’s accompanying Declaration
of Dean Carbajal [#254]. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants “have produced absolutely no
evidence in this matter despite [Plaintiff’s] repeated requests for discovery.” Motion [#253]
at 1. The Motion fails to quote from or attach Plaintiff’s alleged discovery requests and
Defendants’ responses, if any. As a result, it is unclear whether (1) Plaintiff propounded
appropriate written discovery requests, and (2) Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s written
discovery requests. The Court cannot adjudicate disputes about written discovery without
receiving copies of both the discovery requests and the responses. Moreover, to the
extent that Plaintiff is dissatisfied with Defendants’ written discovery responses, he should
file a Motion to Compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) and/or (iv). Accordingly,

-1-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#253] is DENIED without prejudice.
If Plaintiff intends to pursue this issue by filing a Motion to Compel, the Court will entertain
a request to extend the deadlines for Plaintiff to file Responses to the Motions for Summary
Judgment [#239, #241].

Dated: October 30, 2014

-2-