Manchester Place HOA Inc v. Owners Insurance Company

Filing 77

MINUTE ORDER; 68 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Expert Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)is GRANTED, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/14/16.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03226-REB-KLM
MANCHESTER PLACE HOA INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________E
NTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve
Supplemental Expert Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) [#68] (the
“Motion”). In the Motion, Plaintiff notes that Defendant partially opposes the requested
relief. [#68] at 1. However, Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Motion has elapsed and
no Response has been filed. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). As a result, the Court treats the
motion as unopposed. See Walter v. HSM Receivables, No. 13-cv-00564-RM-KLM, 2014
WL 5395197, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 23, 2014) (“The Motion is essentially unopposed as no
response has been filed by Defendants.”); Armstrong v. Swanson, No. 08-cv-00194-MSKMEH, 2009 WL 1938793, at *1 (D. Colo. July 2, 2009) (noting that Plaintiff did not file a
response to the motion for sanctions and “deem[ing] the Plaintiff to have defaulted on th[e]
motion.”).
In connection with the first request for relief, Plaintiff states that it designated Tom
Irmiter (“Irmiter”) as an expert on construction and the value of repairs. Irmiter’s Report and
Estimate were provided to Defendant with Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures. However, while the
Irmiter Report was attached to Plaintiff’s Expert Designation, the Irmiter Estimate was not
attached. Notwithstanding this technical omission, Defendant’s expert, Tom Raga,
commented on and critiqued the Irmiter Estimate in his report. Plaintiff argues that
“[c]onsequently, leave to correct this procedural error and attach Irmiter’s Expert Estimate
to Plaintiff’s Expert Designation will create no prejudicial effect to Defendant” and that “no
impact on the judicial proceedings will exist.” Motion [#68] at 3. Thus, Plaintiff requests
leave to serve Plaintiff’s Supplemental Designation of Experts to include both the Report
and Estimate of Irmiter. This portion of the Motion [#68] is granted.

-1-

In connection with the second request for relief, Plaintiff states that “[t]he Irmiter
report contained the signatures of Tom Irmiter, Ryan Nieregarten and Brian Johnson
(engineer who sealed the report). Tom Irmiter, only, was designated, by former counsel,
as a retained expert.” Motion [#68] at 3-4. Plaintiff argues that because “the names were
included in the Irmiter Report originally submitted with Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures, the
designation of these experts will not constitute surprise to the Defendant[ ].” Id. at 4. Thus,
Plaintiff seeks leave to supplement Plaintiff’s Expert Designations and Disclosures to
include Ryan Niergarten and Brian Johnson as retained experts. This portion of the Motion
[#68] is also granted. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#68] is GRANTED. On or before April
25, 2016, Plaintiff shall (1) serve Defendant with Plaintiff’s Supplemental Designation of
Experts, in order to include both the Report and Estimate of Irmiter, and (2) supplement
Plaintiff’s Expert Designations and Disclosures to include Ryan Niergarten and Brian
Johnson as retained experts.
Dated: April 14, 2016

-2-