Hedin v. Amedisys Holding, L.L.C. et al

Filing 52

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/30/14. Motion to Allow Certain Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [#49] and Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadlines Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [#50] are DENIED. (lgale)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02150-REB-KLM
PAUL HEDIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C., and
AMEDISYS WESTERN, L.L.C.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s opposed Motion to Allow Certain
Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint [#49] (the “Motion for Discovery”) and on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to
Extend Deadlines Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint [#50] (the “Motion for Extension”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Discovery [#49] is DENIED. Normally,
when considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must disregard facts supported by
documents other than the complaint unless the Court first converts the motion to dismiss
into a motion for summary judgment. Jackson v. Integra Inc., 952 F.2d 1260, 1261 (10th
Cir. 1991). However, a Court may consider documents outside of the complaint on a
motion to dismiss in three instances. First, the Court may consider outside documents
pertinent to ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Pringle v.
United States, 208 F.3d 1220, 1222 (10th Cir. 2000). Second, the Court may consider
outside documents subject to judicial notice, including court documents and matters of
public record. Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1265 n.24 (10th Cir. 2006). Third, the Court
may consider outside documents that are both central to the plaintiff's claims and to which
the plaintiff refers in his complaint. GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, 130 F.3d
1381, 1384 (10th Cir. 1997). However, it is far from clear from the Motion for Discovery
[#49] or from the Motion to Dismiss [#42] that the Court would be permitted to consider any
outside documents in resolving the Motion to Dismiss [#42].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension [#50] is DENIED. Plaintiff
-1-

seeks “[t]he allowance of an extension of deadlines to provide expert disclosures of at least
30 days following the determination of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” However, given the
tight case management deadlines set in advance of the Jury Trial beginning on January 26,
2015, large or open-ended extensions of deadlines are inappropriate.

Dated: July 30, 2014

-2-