Running Foxes Petroleum, Inc v. Nighthawk Production LLC

Filing 50

MINUTE ORDER denying for a second time 44 Defendant Nighthawk Production LLC's Motion to Stay Discovery, as set forth in the order. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/4/2014.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01466-MSK-MJW
RUNNING FOXES PETROLEUM, INC.,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
NIGHTHAWK PRODUCTION LLC,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Nighthawk Production LLC’s Motion to
Stay Discovery (docket no. 44) is DENIED for a second time for the following reasons.
At the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held on July 17, 2014, Defendant Nighthawk
Production LLC, in essence, sought a stay of discovery. See paragraph 11a in the
Proposed Scheduling Order (docket no. 28). This court denied any stay of discovery by
the fact that this court signed and entered the Scheduling Order as amended on the
record on July 17, 2014. See docket no. 31. Accordingly, the subject motion (docket
no. 44) is really a motion for reconsideration. The are three major grounds that can
justify reconsideration: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new
evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000). A motion to reconsider is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the
facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law. Id.
Here, Defendant Nighthawk Production LLC has failed to demonstrate any of the
three factors as outlined above in Servants of the Paraclete. Moreover, this court has
broad discretion to control the discovery process, including staying discovery pending
the resolution of dispositive motions. See Nolan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 973 F.2d 843,
849 (10th Cir. 1992). Further, stays are generally disfavored in this District absent
compelling reasons such as lack of subject matter jurisdiction or qualified immunity.
See Wyer Prods. Group v. Cequent Performance Prods, Inc., 2013 WL 2466917, at *1
(D. Colo. June 17, 2013); Chavez v. Young Am. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 683973, at *2 (D.
Colo. Mar. 2, 2007). For these reasons, the subject motion (docket no. 44) should
again be denied.
Date: November 4, 2014