Henkel v. Albertsons, LLC

Filing 35

MINUTE ORDER denying as not a Proper Motion 32 Motion to Compel. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/9/2015.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02217-CMA-MJW
REBECCA HENKEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERTSONS, LLC, a limited liability corporation formed pursuant to the laws of
Delaware,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Docket No. 32 is DENIED AS NOT A PROPER
MOTION.
On April 8, 2015, the Clerk of Court entered a Notice of Noncompliance with
Court Rules/Procedures notifying counsel for Defendant that Docket No. 30
(Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery) failed to comply with
the Court’s CM/ECF e-filing procedures; Chambers has not checked with the Clerk’s
office as to why the notice was entered, but assumes it is at least in part because the
document was e-filed using the login credentials of a different attorney than the attorney
whose electronic signature appears on the document.
The Notice of Noncompliance did not strike Docket No. 30; it simply warned
counsel that future noncompliance would lead to mandatory e-filing training.
Nonetheless, Defendant filed the document at Docket No. 32, which appears to be an
exact copy of the document previously filed at Docket No. 30. The document was filed
through CM/ECF as a motion, but it appears to be simply a response to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Discovery. It requests no relief from the Court. Accordingly, it is not
a motion, and the Court will deny it as not a proper motion.
For purposes of completing briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery,
the Court will continue to treat Docket No. 30 as the operative response. Plaintiff’s
reply (if any) will be due under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), as computed from the date of
service of Docket No. 30, not Docket No. 32.
Date: April 9, 2015