United States Welding Inc v. Tecsys Inc
Filing
216
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 208 Report and Recommendations as an order of this court. That the combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference set for January 22, 2016, and the trial se t to begin February 8, 2016, are vacated and continued without date, pending further order; That on January 5, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. (MST) counsel for the parties shall contact the courts administrative assistant at (303) 335-2350 to reschedule the combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference and the concomitant trial; That the trial shall be scheduled for eight (8) trial days; That counsel for the plaintiff shall arrange and coordinate the conference call necessary to facilitate the telephonic setting conference; That the Trial Preparation Conference Order 75 entered January 27, 2015, is amended and supplemented accordingly. Telephone Conference set for 1/5/2016 11:30 AM, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 12/17/2015.(evana, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00778-REB-MEH
UNITES STATES WELDING, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECSYS, INC., a Canadian corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE & CONTINUING TRIAL
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#208]1 filed December 14, 2015. As noted in the recommendation, the parties
agree with the recommendation of the magistrate judge. That agreement demonstrates
that the parties do not object to the recommendation. Therefore, I review the
recommendation only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration &
Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no error, much
less plain error, in the recommendation, I find and conclude that recommendation
should be approved and adopted.
For many months the magistrate judge has worked with the parties to address
and resolve myriad discovery and other issues. In his recommendation, the magistrate
1
“[#208]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
judge notes:
This case presents complicated issues of causation and damages.
From January 2015 to the present, this Court has worked to assist the
parties in attempting to resolve numerous discovery issues concerning
damages, some of which remain outstanding. These proceedings have
prolonged this case much longer than expected. The Court’s and parties’
efforts may require additional time and will intrude upon the currently
scheduled trial preparation conference and trial. Indeed, I do not believe
the current schedule will permit the parties to adequately prepare for trial.
Recommendation [#208], p. 1. Trial in this case currently is set to begin on February 8,
2016. The magistrate judge recommends that the trial be continued to a date later in
2016 to permit the parties and the court to complete discovery and to resolve issues
which remain outstanding. The defendant seeks a trial in April, May, September, or
October 2016. The plaintiff seeks a trial as soon as practicable after discovery is
complete and pre-trial issues are resolved.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has identified four
primary factors that should be considered to determine if a continuance is necessary.
See, e.g., Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.,175 F.3d 1221, 1230
(10th Cir. 1999) (citing U.S. v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1469 (10th Cir. 1987) (listing
factors)). The key relevant factors are
(1) the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; (2) the likelihood
that the continuance, if granted, would accomplish the purpose underlying
the party’s expressed need for the continuance; (3) the inconvenience to
the opposing party, its witnesses, and the court resulting from the
continuance; [and] (4) the need asserted for the continuance and the harm
that [movant] might suffer as result of the district court’s denial of the
continuance.
United States v. Rivera, 900 F.2d 1462, 1475 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States
v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987)). Applied to the present case, these
2
factors augur toward a continuance of the trial and the combined Final Pretrial
Conference and Trial Preparation Conference.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#208] filed
December 14, 2015, is approved and adopted as an order of this court;
2. That the combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation
Conference set for January 22, 2016, and the trial set to begin February 8, 2016, are
vacated and continued without date, pending further order;
3. That on January 5, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. (MST) counsel for the parties shall
contact the court’s administrative assistant at (303) 335-2350 to reschedule the
combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference and the
concomitant trial;
4. That the trial shall be scheduled for eight (8) trial days;
5. That counsel for the plaintiff shall arrange and coordinate the conference call
necessary to facilitate the telephonic setting conference;
6. That the Trial Preparation Conference Order [#75] entered January 27,
2015, is amended and supplemented accordingly.
Dated December 17, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?