Roe v. Metro Collection Service Inc.
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING/PLANNING CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/12/14. Scheduling Conference set for 9/15/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom C204 before Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2) (lgale)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01320-KLM
METRO COLLECTION SERVICE INC.,
(as amended effective February 6, 2014)
The above captioned case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix pursuant
to the Pilot Project to Implement the Direct Assignment of Civil Cases to Full Time Magistrate
Judges. See [#3-1]. The parties are reminded that they “must complete and file the Consent Form
at the earlier of (1) not more than ten days after the scheduling conference; or (2) not more than
forty-five days after the filing of the first response, other than an answer, to the operative complaint.
Filing of the Consent Form is mandatory, indicating either the unanimous consent of the parties
or that consent has been declined.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added).
A. Date of Scheduling Conference
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Scheduling/Planning Conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(b) shall be held on September 15, 2014, commencing at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom C-204,
Second Floor, Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado.
B. How to Request Different Date for Scheduling Conference
If this date is not convenient for any counsel or pro se party, he or she shall file a motion to
reschedule the conference to a more convenient date, and shall list dates in the motion which are
available for all counsel and pro se parties. Absent exceptional circumstances, no request for
rescheduling any appearance in this court will be considered unless a motion is made five (5)
business days in advance of the date of appearance.
C. How to Request Appearance By Telephone at Scheduling Conference
If you wish to appear at the Scheduling Conference by telephone, you must file a motion
seeking permission to appear by telephone and setting forth good cause for a telephonic
appearance. No motion for any telephonic appearance will be granted unless it is filed at least five
(5) business days in advance of the date of appearance.
D. Plaintiff’s Duty to Notify Parties of Scheduling Conference
The plaintiff shall notify all parties who have not entered an appearance as of the date of
this Order of the date and time of the Scheduling/Planning Conference set forth above.
E. Parties’ Obligations Before Scheduling Conference
1. Scheduling Order
IT IS ORDERED that counsel and pro se parties in this case are to hold a pre-scheduling
conference meeting at least twenty-one (21) days before the scheduling conference pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1) and prepare a proposed Scheduling Order in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(f), as amended. The instructions for completing the Scheduling Order may be found on the
Court’s website (www.cod.uscourts.gov) with the scheduling order forms. Please be aware that
effective December 1, 2011, there are TWO forms of Scheduling Order available on the
Court’s website under the “Local Rules” tab: one form for non-administrative review cases
and one form for ERISA cases. PLEASE USE THE CURRENT and CORRECT FORM FOR
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), as amended, no discovery is to be exchanged until after
the Rule 26(f) conference meeting. The parties shall include the following language in Section 8,
Paragraph (d) of their proposed Scheduling Order in non-administrative review cases:
“Other Planning or Discovery Orders: No opposed discovery motions are to be filed with
the Court until the parties comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1A. If the parties are unable to
reach agreement on a discovery issue after conferring, they shall arrange a telephone
hearing with Magistrate Judge Mix regarding the issue. Both of these steps must be
completed before any contested discovery motions are filed with the Court.”
No later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the Scheduling/Planning Conference,
counsel and pro se parties shall submit their proposed Scheduling Order in compliance with the
Court’s Electronic Case Filing Procedures which are also available on the Court’s website. An
additional copy of the proposed scheduling order is to be provided to my chambers at
Mix_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov by e-mail attachment with the subject line stating “proposed
Parties who are pro se or do not have access to the internet may obtain the scheduling
order form and instructions from the Clerk’s Office, Room A105, in the Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado, 80294. Scheduling Orders prepared by parties
not represented by counsel, or without access to electronic case filing, are to be submitted to the
Clerk of the Court on paper.
2. Mandatory Disclosures
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 14 days after the Rule 26(f) pre-scheduling
conference meeting, the parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), as amended.
All counsel shall comply
It is the responsibility of all counsel and pro se parties to notify the Court of his or her entry
of appearance, withdrawal of appearance, substitution of counsel, or change of address, e-mail
address, or telephone number by complying with the Court’s Electronic Case Filing Procedures or
paper-filing the appropriate document with the Court.
The Parties are further advised that they shall not assume that the Court will grant the relief
requested in any motion. Failure to appear at a court-ordered conference or to comply with a courtordered deadline which has not been vacated by court order may result in the imposition of
sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).
Anyone seeking entry to the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse will be required to
show valid photo identification. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2(b). Failure to comply with this
requirement will result in denial of entry to the courthouse.
DATED: May 12, 2014 at Denver, Colorado.
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?