Alarid v. Biomet, Inc et al

Filing 119

ORDER Overruling 82 Plaintiffs Objection to Magistrate Judge Wangs Order and Request for Review, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/27/2016.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02667-REB-NYW
ALFONSO A. ALARID,
Plaintiff,
v.
BIOMET, INC.,
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC,
BIOMET MANUFACTURING, LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WANG’S ORDER AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Wang’s
Order and Request for Review [#82],1 filed October 20, 2015. I overrule the objection.
Plaintiff’s objection pertains to non-dispositive matters that were referred to the
magistrate judge for resolution. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a), I may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge’s order which I find to
be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s order and the underlying motion which it
resolved, I find and conclude that neither of those circumstances pertains here.
Contrary to plaintiff’s suggestion, this is not an instance where defendants managed to

1

“[#82]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this order.

elude the necessity of showing good cause for an extension of the expert disclosure
deadline by a disclosure ultimately determined to be inadequate.2 The record before
me is clear that defendants offered to make a full disclosure if plaintiff would withdraw
his motion. Although plaintiff is certainly correct that he was not required to withdraw
the motion, and the magistrate judge thereafter heard and determined the matter
expeditiously, the inevitable delay occasioned by plaintiff’s decision to insist on formal
resolution of the dispute hardly justifies the drastic remedies he seeks here.3
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the objections stated in Plaintiff’s
Objection to Magistrate Judge Wang’s Order and Request for Review [#82], filed
October 20, 2015, are overruled.
Dated January 27, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2

Moreover, and contrary to plaintiff’s argument, to the extent a showing of good cause might be
thought necessary (a proposition which strikes this court has highly dubious), that standard is more
appropriately derived from Rule 16(b)(4), which governs amendments to the scheduling order, rather than
this courts Civil Practice Standards. Assuming arguendo that a showing of good cause was necessary,
that standard certainly is satisfied here, where defendants did no more than insist – based on colorable,
good faith legal arguments – on the adequacy of their initial disclosure.
3

The court especially sees no justification for vacating the trial to allow plaintiff to take further
evidence from the expert given plaintiff’s complete failure to take advantage of the magistrate judge’s
directive that the expert be made available for an additional half day of deposition. (Order on Plf. Motion
To Strike ¶ 3 at 10 [#70], filed October 7, 2015.)

2