Spring Creek Exploration & Production Company, LLC v. Hess Bakken Invenstment II, LLC et al

Filing 118

Minute ORDER denying 116 Motion to Strike for Failure to Comply with Judge Brimmer's Practice Standards. Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 07/14/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00134-PAB-KMT
SPRING CREEK EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, and
GOLD COAST ENERGY, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENT II, LLC, f/k/a TRZ ENERGY LLC, and
STATOIL OIL & GAS LP, f/k/a BRIGHAM OIL & GAS LP,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d)
Motion for Additional Time for Failure to Comply with Judge Philip A. Brimmer’s Practice
Standards [Docket No. 116] filed by defendant Statoil Oil & Gas LP (“Statoil”). Statoil
asks the Court to strike plaintiffs’ Motion for Additional Time to Respond to Statoil’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 113) on the grounds that plaintiffs’ motion
was untimely. Statoil filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on June 18, 2015. See
Docket No. 99. Statoil states that, because plaintif fs’ response was due July 9, 2015
(21 days after June 18, 2015), plaintiffs’ July 8, 2015 motion for an extension of time
violated the Court’s practice standards, which require any motion for an extension of
time to be filed no later than three business days before the date on which the filing is
due. Docket No. 116 at 2; see also Practice Standards (Civil cases), Judge Philip A.
Brimmer § I.G.2.
Statoil’s motion is based on a mistaken calculation of the deadline for plaintiffs to
respond to Statoil’s summary judgment motion. Statoil served its motion for summary
judgment via the CM/ECF system. See Docket No. 99 at 21. Pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) (response due 21 days after motion is filed) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(d) and 5(b)(2)(E) (three additional days for electronic service), plaintiffs’ response was
not due until July 13, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their June 8, 2015 motion for an extension of
time three business days before their filing deadline, in compliance with the Court’s
practice standards. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) Motion for Additional
Time for Failure to Comply with Judge Philip A. Brimmer’s Practice Standards [Docket
No. 116] is DENIED.
DATED July 14, 2015.