Chavez v. Nestle Dryer's Ice Cream Company

Filing 29

MINUTE ORDER denying 25 Motion to Quash, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/6/2014.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00906-RBJ-MEH
JAMES C. CHAVEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
NESTLE DREYER’S ICE CREAM COMPANY, d/b/a Nestle DSD Company,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 6, 2014.
Before the Court is a Motion to Quash filed by Interested Party Brittany White [filed
November 6, 2014; docket #25]. The Court will deny the motion without prejudice for the
following reasons. First, Ms. White failed to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a), which states,
Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented party
shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any opposing
counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The moving party
shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific
efforts to fulfill this duty.
The motion does not fall under any exception listed in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(b). Thus, if Ms. White
re-files her motion, she must comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a). See Hoelzel v. First Select
Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1(a) requires meaningful negotiations
by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or
voicemail).
Second, Ms. White failed to attach a copy of the challenged subpoena to her motion for the
Court’s review. Third, Ms. White failed to certify that she served a copy of her motion on the
parties in this case in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). If she determines to re-file her motion,
Ms. White shall do so in accordance with this order.