Kolakowski v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al

Filing 24

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/23/14. Motion to ModifyScheduling Order is Denied Without prejudice 22 .(lgale)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02682-RM-KLM
MARK KOLAKOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as Harbor
Freight Tools, and
MATT DEFAZIO, an individual,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Modify
Scheduling Order [#22] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff seeks an extension of the affirmative
expert deadline, which occurred on May 15, 2014, for the sole purpose of allowing one
expert, Ben T. Railsback (“Railsback”), to complete his expert report. According to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(b), a motion for an extension of time shall state the length of the
requested extension of time. However, it is unclear from the Motion how long of an
extension will be required. Plaintiff states that “Mr. Railsback is unable to complete his
evaluation of this case and complete his expert report until Defendants disclose information
and documents requested in Plaintiff’s written discovery requests, specifically, Harbor
Freight’s training, policy, and procedure manuals, incident reports, and Defendant Matt
Defazio’s employee file.” Motion [#22] at 2. Plaintiff states that Defendants will not
produce these items until a protective order is in place, although a proposed protective
order has not yet been agreed on by the parties and submitted to the Court. Thus,
although Plaintiff seeks an extension of the deadline until thirty days after production of the
aforementioned discovery, the actual length of the extension sought by Plaintiff is
indeterminable. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion violates D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(b). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#22] is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: May 23, 2014