Reiskin et al v. Regional Transportation District

Filing 90

ORDER granting in part and denying in part #87 RTD's Motion To Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Liability #82 , or in the Alternative, for Extension of Time To Respond. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/27/2015.(mlace, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-REB-KLM
JULIE REISKIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a/k/a RTD, a political subdivision of the
State of Colorado
Defendant.

ORDER
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is RTD’s Motion To Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment Regarding Liability [ECF No. 82], or in the Alternative, for
Extension of Time To Respond [#87],1 filed August 26, 2015. Defendant moves to
strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Liability [#82], filed
August 19, 2015, because plaintiffs have already filed one motion for summary
judgment (see Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Seeking
Declaration That Settlement Agreement and Release Apply Only to Fixed Route
Buses [#71], filed July 9, 2015) and failed to seek leave of the court to exceed the page
limitations established by my Civil Practice Standards when filing their subsequent
summary judgment motion. See REB Civ. Practice Standards IV.B.2 (“If a party elects

1
“[#87]” 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.

to file more than one Rule 56 motion, then the motions and response briefs shall not
exceed twenty (20) pages total for all such motions (not each such motion) filed by that
party.”).
However, just prior to the filing of defendant’s motion, plaintiffs moved for and
were granted leave to withdraw their earlier summary judgment motion. (See Minute
Order [#89], filed August 26, 2015.) Plaintiffs therefore effectively have filed but one
summary judgment motion, which complies with the court’s Civil Practice Standards.
Defendants’ motion to strike therefore is moot, and will be denied on that basis.
Although stated in the alternative, defendants additionally seek an extension of
time to respond to the motion for summary judgment in order to conduct additional
discovery, as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Given the averments of the
motion, substantiated by the affidavit appended thereto, and being fully advised of the
premises, the court finds and concludes that the motion for extension of time is welltaken and thus should be granted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That RTD’s Motion To Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Regarding Liability [ECF No. 82], or in the Alternative, for Extension of Time To
Respond [#87], filed August 26, 2015, is granted in part and denied as moot in part;
2. That the motion is denied as moot to the extent it seeks to strike plaintiffs’
noncompliant summary judgment motion;
3. That the motion is granted to the extent it seeks an extension of the deadline
to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Liability [#82],

2

filed August 19, 2015; and
4. That defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Regarding Liability [#82], filed August 19, 2015, shall be due by November 9, 2015.
Dated August 27, 2015, at Denver, Colorado
BY THE COURT:

3