Stead v. Menduno

Filing 46

COURTROOM MINUTES for Motion Hearing held on 12/4/2014 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses 36 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. FTR: KMT C201. (sgrim)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No: Courtroom Deputy: 14-cv-01400-PAB-KMT Sabrina Grimm Date: December 4, 2014 FTR: Courtroom C-201 Parties: Counsel: IN RE THE APPLICATION OF ANTHONY LEIGH STEAD, Miranda Rogers John Cadkin Plaintiff, v. DAVINA MENDUNO, Andrew Helm Nathaniel Barker Defendant. COURTROOM MINUTES MOTION HEARING 1:36 p.m. Court in session. Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. Mr. Helm informs the Court that the requests for admission in dispute have been resolved. Discussion and argument regarding Petitioner’s financial situation, affirmative defense of grave risk based on financial circumstances, Judge Brimmer’s Order [43], identification of employers, Mr. Stead’s deposition testimony and his employment log. Court finds Interrogatory No. 5 is irrelevant. ORDERED: Respondent’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [36] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 8 and Request for Production No. 1. Petitioner shall produce his signed supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 8 and responsive documents relied on to comply with Interrogatory No. 8, as discussed, on or before December 12, 2014. To the extent the Petitioner relies upon a Day Planner or other calendar, that shall not be produced. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. 2:08 p.m. Court in recess. Hearing concluded. Total in-court time 00:32 *To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119. 2

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?