Reiskin et al v. Regional Transportation District
Filing
61
MINUTE ORDER; #58 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Third Amended Class Action Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. #59 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is GRANTED, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/18/15.(morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-REB-KLM
JULIE REISKIN,
JON JAMIE LEWIS,
WILLIAM JOE BEAVER,
DOUGLAS HOWEY,
DIANA MILNE,
TINA MCDONALD,
JOSE TORRES-VEGA,
RANDY KILBOURN,
JOHN BABCOCK,
KIMBERLEY JACKSON,
PAULINA BLACK,
RUTHIE MCNAIR,
VRLINA NOZLIC, and
COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Class Action Complaint [#58]1 (the “Motion to Amend Complaint”) and
Unopposed Defendant RTD’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order [ECF No. 37]
[#59] (the “Motion to Amend Scheduling Order”).
In the Motion to Amend Complaint, Plaintiffs state that their counsel began
1
“[#58]” is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number
assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system
(CM/ECF). The Court uses this convention throughout this Minute Order.
1
conferring with Defendant’s counsel regarding the requested relief and the proposed Third
Amended Complaint, but those discussions were never completed and that, as a result,
“Plaintiffs assume Defendant opposes this Motion.” Motion to Amend Complaint [#58] at
2. According to the Motion to Amend Complaint, Defendant did not oppose the proposed
amendments, but its agreement was contingent on Plaintiffs’ agreement to a discovery
proposal. Id. The Motion to Amend Complaint states that “[u]ndersigned counsel sent a
response to that proposal this morning. No further response from Defendant’s counsel has
been received.” Id. While Plaintiffs may conclude that the Motion to Amend Complaint is
therefore opposed, that may not be true. If Defendant would not oppose the requested
relief even with a contingency, it is possible that Defendant would not oppose the requested
relief without a contingency because to oppose the Motion to Amend Complaint would
require Defendant to expend resources briefing the issue that Defendant may not be willing
to expend.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a), the Court will not consider a nondispositive motion
unless the movant, prior to filing, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to
confer with opposing counsel to resolve the dispute. To confer means to “discuss, talk
over, consult about,” or “to hold conference.” See Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989).
Accordingly, the language of Local Rule 7.1A suggests that parties confer by “hold[ing] a
conference, possibly through the exchange of correspondence but preferably through
person-to-person telephone calls or face-to-face meetings, and [by] compar[ing] views and
attempt[ing] to reach an agreement, including by compromise if appropriate.” Hoelzel v.
First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003). If both parties have not discussed
and compared views in an attempt to reach an agreement, the movant must at least make
reasonable, good-faith efforts to do so. The Court judges the reasonableness of movant’s
good-faith efforts by considering not only the sheer quantity of contacts, but also their
quality in relation to the issues in dispute. Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard
Corp., 189 F.R.D. 456, 459 (D. Kan. 1999) (holding that four telephone calls and two letters
did not satisfy the duty to make a reasonable, good-faith effort to confer regarding
contested discovery issues). Here, the Court finds that Local Rule 7.1(a)’s requirements
are not met because Plaintiffs essentially stopped conferring in the middle of the conferral
process and filed the Motion to Amend Complaint without determining whether it was
opposed. As a result, the Court will deny the Motion to Amend Complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiffs may re-file the Motion to Amend Complaint after they determine if it is opposed.
The Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is unopposed. Motion to Amend Sched.
Order [#59] at 1.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Complaint [#58] is DENIED
without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [#59] is
2
GRANTED. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that sections 8(a) and 8(b) of the Scheduling Order
[#37] are amended to allow Defendant to depose: (a) each individual named Plaintiff for up
to three hours, regardless of how many times Plaintiffs amend their complaint or add new
plaintiffs; (b) Plaintiff Colorado Cross Disability Coalition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6) for up to seven hours; and (c) each expert witness designated by Plaintiffs for up
to seven hours each.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that sections 8(a) and 8(b) of the Scheduling Order
[#37] are amended to allow Plaintiffs to depose: (a) no more than seventeen fact witnesses
for no more than three hours each; (b) Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) for
up to seven hours; and (c) each expert witness designated by Defendant for up to seven
hours each.
Dated: June 18, 2015
3
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?