Baker v. NRA Group, LLC

Filing 66

MINUTE ORDER denying 57 Motion to Compel the Defendant's Responses to the Plaintiff's Written Discovery Requests, and 61 Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/7/14.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02665-MSK-MJW
SCOTT BAKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NRA GROUP, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Defendant’s
Responses to the Plaintiff’s Written Discovery Requests Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26,
33, 34, 36, and 37 (docket no. 57) is DENIED for the following reasons.
The court finds that after reviewing the E-mails (docket no. 60-1) Defendant NRA
Group, LLC’s Responses to Plaintiff First Set of Interrogatories dated December 23,
2013 (docket no. 60-3), Defendant NRA Group LLC’s Second Supplemental Responses
to Plaintiff First Set of Interrogatories dated March 26, 2014 (docket no. 60-2), and the
portion of the videoconference deposition transcript of Ashley A. Chille taken on March
18, 2014 (docket no. 60-4), that Defendant has fully responded to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests in the subject motion (docket no. 57). Accordingly, the motion should be
denied.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion
Deadline (docket no. 61) is DENIED. “Good Cause” means that the scheduling
deadlines cannot be met despite a party’s diligent efforts.” Colorado Visionary
Academy v. Medtronic, Inc., 194 F.R.D. 584, 587 (D. Colo. 2000) (quoting Dilmar Oil
Co., Inc. v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 959, 980 (D.S.C. 1997), aff’d, 129
F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 1997)). Based upon the record of court proceedings and the
procedural facts of this case, this court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
“good cause” to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions.
Date: July 7, 2014