Ruiz et al v. Act Fast Delivery of Colorado, Inc. et al
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang: Motion Hearing held on 2/27/2015. ORDER: denying 51 Defendant's Motion for Sanctions. FTR: Wang-am. (nmarb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE NINA Y. WANG
Civil Actions: 14-cv-00870-MSK-NYW
Courtroom Deputy: Laura Galera
Date: February 27, 2015
FTR: NYW COURTROOM C-205
ACT FAST DELIVERY OF COLORADO, INC.,
POWERFORCE OF COLORADO, INC.,
Stacy Dian Mueller
COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER
Court in Session: 8:36 a.m. Hearing delayed for appearance of Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Appearance of counsel. Counsel for Defendants appeared; counsel for Plaintiffs did not appear
on time. Counsel for Plaintiffs arrives at 8:45, citing confusion with the courtroom for delay.
Argument held on Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Appear for
Depositions  filed November 5, 2014.
The court finds that under the standard set out by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and the case law of this
District, the Motion for Sanctions is unwarranted. Defense counsel stated on the record that no
motion to compel was filed with respect to these depositions prior to the filing of the Motion for
Sanctions and no tangible costs, such as court reporter fees, were expended. Under International
Brothers of Teamsters, Airline Div. v. Frontier Airlines, 2013 WL 627149 (D. Colo. Feb. 19,
2013) (J. Mix), sanctions are implicitly dependent on the court’s examination of the moving
party’s good faith efforts to obtain discovery without court action and to the extent to which the
response was substantially justified. The court finds that there was no motion to compel file, and
thus no order compelling the depositions.
Court advises Plaintiffs’ counsel he must file a separate Motion for Sanctions if he wishes to
proceed on that matter pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), but indicates that the court is not
inclined to entertain a Motion for Sanctions from Plaintiffs related to this issue of depositions.
Court further advises Plaintiffs’ counsel that under the Local Rules, sur-replies are not permitted
as a matter of course, but a party must obtain leave from the court to file one.
Discussion regarding what additional discovery is anticipated.
For the reasons stated on the record, it is
ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Appear for
Depositions  is DENIED.
ORDERED: Should any discovery disputes arise, counsel are ordered to contact chambers
by telephone to set up an informal discovery conference. Counsel are not
allowed to file any pleadings regarding discovery disputes unless otherwise
directed to do so by the Court.
ORDERED: Counsel shall exchange the names and availability of the remaining deponents
no later than March 6, 2015. Counsel will also specifically identify to the other
specific documents that are alleged to be relevant and not produced.
Court in Recess: 9:09 a.m.
Total time in Court: 00:33
* To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119.
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?