Jemaneh v. University of Wyoming,The

Filing 87

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 84 Plaintiff's Uncontested Motion to Cancel Court Scheduled Depositions of Defendants and Contested Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order Denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED insofar as the depositions scheduled for June 17 through June 21, June 24 through June 28, and July 1 are canceled. The depositions will not be reset because plaintiff has not produced any medical evidence to support his argument. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED as to his request to increase the number of Requests for Production (from 25 to 125) and Requests for Admission (from 50 to 200). Given the nature of this case, the number of requests originally set in the Scheduling Order is more than adequate. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 05/31/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02383-RM-MJW
TEWODROS G. JEMANEH,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING, et al.,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Uncontested Motion to Cancel Court
Scheduled Depositions of Defendants and Contested Motion to Reconsider the Court’s
Order Denying the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (Docket No. 84) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows.
On April 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel (Docket No. 73) indicating
that the parties could not agree on a schedule for plaintiff to depose the various named
defendants. On May 5, 2013, the court entered an Order (Docket No. 81) directing the
parties to again confer in an attempt to set the depositions. Further, the court set a
hearing on the matter and directed the parties to bring their calendars. The court
warned that any depositions the parties could not agree on would be set by the court at
the hearing.
On May 15, 2013, the court held the hearing (Docket No. 82) on the disputed
depositions. The parties reported that they had not come to an agreement on any of the
depositions. The court noted the lack of cooperation between the parties. During the
hearing, the parties could not agree on any kind of schedule. Accordingly, the court set
the depositions to occur at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse on June 17 through June
21, June 24 through June 28, and July 1. Both parties indicated that they were
available on those dates. The court notes that out-of-state defendant deponents were
ordered to travel to Colorado; as an accommodation to plaintiff, he was not required to
travel to out-of-state locations to conduct any of the depositions.
Plaintiff now seeks to cancel the depositions, citing health concerns. However,
plaintiff provides no documentation, such as a doctor’s note, to support his contentions.
The court has been more than accommodating in scheduling the depositions. It was

clear to the court at the May 15, 2013 hearing that the parties would never be able to
set the depositions without the court’s intervention. Although neither side was happy
with the depositions schedule, both sides indicated they were available on those dates.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED insofar as the depositions scheduled
for June 17 through June 21, June 24 through June 28, and July 1 are canceled. The
depositions will not be reset because plaintiff has not produced any medical evidence to
support his argument. Moreover, plaintiff has wasted this court’s time and defendants’
counsel’s time. It is clear to the court that plaintiff never intended to take the
depositions scheduled by the court. See Docket No. 85-1 (showing that plaintiff emailed
defense counsel less than 24 hours following the court’s hearing indicating that he
intended to cancel all of his depositions). Further, given the above circumstances, the
court finds that plaintiff has abused the discovery process and should be sanctioned for
his actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; see also Lee v. Max Intern., LLC, 638 F.3d 1318,
1320 (10th Cir. 2011) (stating that “district courts enjoy ‘very broad discretion to use
sanctions where necessary to insure . . . that lawyers and parties . . . fulfill their high
duty to insure the expeditious and sound management of the preparation of cases for
trial’”) (quoting In re Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1440 (10th Cir. 1984)). Accordingly, the
court orders that plaintiff has forfeited the ten depositions afforded to him in the
Scheduling Order.
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to his request to increase the number of
Requests for Production (from 25 to 125) and Requests for Admission (from 50 to 200).
Given the nature of this case, the number of requests originally set in the Scheduling
Order is more than adequate. Moreover, the court already ruled on this issue at the
May 15, 2013 hearing. The court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated no reason for the
court to reconsider its previous order.
Date: May 31, 2013