EFCO Corporation v. Western Surety Company, et al.,

Filing 57

MINUTE ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 54 Defendants Western Surety Company and Tower 1 Construction Company, Motion for leave to respond to Plaintiff, EFCO Corporation's ("EFCO"), discovery requests, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 8/26/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02934-WJM-MEH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the use of EFCO CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, a South Dakota corporation,
TOWER I CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Colorado corporation,
COLORADO COMMERCIAL GLASS, INC., a Colorado corporation, and
GREGORY J. EVANS,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 23, 2013.
The Motion for Leave to Respond to Requests for Discovery and Motion to Withdraw or
Amend Deemed Admissions filed by Defendants Western Surety Company and Tower 1
Construction Company [filed August 21, 2013; docket #54] is denied without prejudice for failure
to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, which states,
The court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the
motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with
opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter. The moving
party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the
specific efforts to comply with this rule.
(emphasis added). Although Plaintiff’s counsel informs callers that he will be out of the office until
August 26, 2013, Defendants do not explain whether counsel is otherwise able to be contacted, i.e.,
by cellular phone or by email, and why Defendants could not wait to file the motion until Plaintiff’s
counsel’s return. The Court reminds the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with
D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003)
(because Rule 7.1A requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one
party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail).