Dieterich v. Stellar Recovery, Inc.
ORDER: 27 MOTION to Compel Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED as moot. 32 Amended MOTION for Order to Extend Discovery Cutoff is GRANTED. Discovery extended to 5/15/2013 solely to allow the plaintiff to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the defendant. Dispositive Motions due by 5/31/2013. Final Pretrial Conference reset to 7/25/2013 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/18/2013. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/15/13. (bnbcd, ) Modified on 4/15/2013 to correct dates (bnbcd, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02464-WYD-BNB
STELLAR RECOVERY, INC., a Florida corporation,
This matter arises on the following:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. # 27, filed 2/27/2013] (the “Motion to
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Extend [Doc. # 32, filed 3/7/2013] (the “Motion
I previously heard argument on the Motion to Compel and required the parties to engage
in further discussions to attempt to narrow the dispute. Those efforts were successful, and the
plaintiff informs me that all disputes concerning the written discovery have been resolved.
The plaintiff continues in her request to extend the discovery cutoff to allow a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of the defendant and to extend the dispositive motion deadline to a date after
the close of discovery. The request is opposed. First, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs
claim to need additional time for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is “disingenuous as Plaintiff has
made the same argument before in other cases involving Defendant and then did not depose
Defendant’s representative.” Response [Doc. # 36] at p. 2. In addition, the defendant argues
that the extensions are unnecessary because of the “unimportance and inadmissibility of the
requested documents” as shown by the plaintiff’s failure “to identify any of the documents as an
exhibit in the other cases involving Defendant.” Id. I am not familiar with the prior conduct
alleged by the defendant, and the defendant has offered no evidence or further explanation of the
circumstances. Finally, the defendant argues that plaintiff has “more than enough [information]
to depose Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness in a timely manner.” Id. at p. 3.
The defendant provided on approximately April 12, 2013, additional information as a
result of my requirement that the parties attempt to narrow their discovery dispute, including
identifying the specifics of its bona fide error defense; details of the information submitted by
the defendant to credit bureaus concerning the account in dispute; and details about any
recordings of the collection calls between the parties. The defendant also provided additional
documents, although I am not aware of the contents of those documents.
I find that the pendency of the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and the supplemental
information and documents provided to the plaintiff as a result of that Motion to Compel
constitute good cause to extend the discovery cutoff and the dispositive motion deadline.
IT IS ORDERED:
The Motion to Compel [Doc. # 27] is DENIED as moot;
The Motion to Extend [Doc. # 32] is GRANTED; and
The case schedule is modified to the following extent:
(a) The discovery cutoff is extended to and including May 15, 2013, solely to
allow the plaintiff to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the defendant;
(b) The dispositive motion deadline is extended to and including May 31, 2013;
(c) The final pretrial conference set for May 15, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., is
VACATED and RESET to July 25, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. A Final Pretrial Order shall be prepared
by the parties and submitted to the court no later than July 18, 2013.
Dated April 15, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
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?