United States Welding Inc v. Tecsys Inc

Filing 279

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL: The combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference set for May 6, 2016, and the trial set to begin May 16, 2016, are vacated and continued without date. On May 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (MDT) counsel for the parties shall contact the court's administrative assistant to reschedule the combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference and the trial. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/25/16. (kfinn)

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 CONTINUING TRIAL
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before the court sua sponte. A conflict between the trial setting in
this case and a trial setting in a criminal case necessitates a continuance of the trial in
this case.
Currently, the trial of this case is scheduled to begin on May 16, 2016. A
combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference is set for May 6,
2016. On May 16, 2016, this court will be in the midst of a trial in a criminal matter set
to proceed before this judge. For many reasons, including the speedy trial requirements
of the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, trial settings in criminal
cases take precedence over trial settings in civil cases.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has outlined 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)).1 Applied to the present case, these
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 the combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation
Conference set for May 6, 2016, and the trial set to begin May 16, 2016, are vacated
and continued without date;
2. That on May 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (MDT) counsel for the parties shall
contact the court’s administrative assistant at [phone] to reschedule the
combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference and the trial;
3. That the trial shall be scheduled for eight (8) trial days;
4. That counsel for the plaintiff shall arrange and coordinate the conference call
necessary to facilitate this telephone conference;
5. That the Second Trial Preparation Conference Order [#226] entered
January 6, 2016, is amended and supplemented accordingly.
1

In my civil practice standards, I specify that a motion to continue shall be determined pursuant
to, inter alia, the West factors. See REB Civil Practice Standard II.F.2.

2

Dated April 25, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3