Malveaux v. Xcel Energy Services, Inc.

Filing 51

MINUTE ORDER denying 49 Defendant's Renewed Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and for Extension of Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure Deadline by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 8/27/2015.(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03137-CMA-MEH
ALCIN MALVEAUX
Plaintiff,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, d/b/a XCEL ENERGY,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 27, 2015.
Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order for Extension of Rebuttal
Expert Witness Disclosure Deadline [filed August 26, 2015; docket #49] is denied without
prejudice for failure to confer pursuant to D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a), which states,
Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented party
shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any opposing
counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The moving party
shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the
specific efforts to fulfill this duty.
The motion does not fall under any exception listed in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(b). The Court reminds
the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a). See
Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1(a) requires
meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party
a single email, letter or voicemail).