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)

Download PDF
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

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?