Chung v. Lamb et al

Filing 66

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/22/16. Motion for Amendment of Case Deadlines # 63 is GRANTED. Discovery due by 8/29/2016. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 12/28/2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference set for July 6, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. is VACATED and RESET to January 4, 2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom A401 before Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03244-WYD-KLM
EMILY BOSCOE CHUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY J. LAMB, and
TIMOTHY J. LAMB, P.C.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Amendment of Case
Deadlines [#63] (the “Motion”). On April 4, 2016, the Court lifted the stay which had been
imposed while Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#18] was being resolved. Minute Order
[#58]. The paTotesrties were also directed to “confer and file a joint motion for amendment
of case deadlines and hearings” by April 21, 2016. Id. On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Strike from Answer [#59] and a Motion to Stay Discovery [#61] until the Motion
to Strike from Answer [#59] is resolved. Defendant filed the present Motion [#63] in
compliance with the Minute Order [#58] regarding amendment of case deadlines.
Later the same day, Plaintiff filed a Clarification Regarding Amended Scheduling
Order [#65], in which she states that she “reasonably believes that her pending motion to
stay discovery filed earlier today [#61] interrupted the deadline set by the Court by which
the parties would file to request new case deadlines. Therefore, filing of a request for
amended deadlines (and responding to Defendants’ motion for amendment of case
deadlines) is not procedurally required.” Plaintiff cites no legal authority for her contention,
and indeed there is none. Unless otherwise specified by Local Rule or other authority, the
mere filing of a motion to stay does not relieve the parties from any pending obligations,
including meeting all deadlines. See, e.g., Asmann v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 121060-KHV/DJW, 2012 WL 1136865, at *3 (D. Kan. Apr. 4, 2012) (“Here, the Court holds
that [the] motion to stay these proceedings . . . does not postpone its obligation to answer
or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s petition until after the Court rules on the motion to stay.”).
The Court has therefore reviewed the case management deadlines proposed and timely
submitted by Defendant. Finding them to be reasonable,
-1-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#63] is GRANTED. The deadlines in this
matter are amended as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Deadline to Submit Proposed Protective Order
Deadline to Submit Proposed 502(d) Order
Deadline to Serve Initial Disclosures
Deadline to Join Parties and Amend Pleadings
Deadline to Serve Written Discovery Requests
Affirmative Expert Disclosure Deadline
Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline
Discovery Deadline
Dispositive Motions Deadline

May 2, 2016
May 2, 2016
May 2, 2016
May 2, 2016
July 15, 2016
July 28, 2016
August 5, 2016
August 29, 2016
September 30, 2016

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference set for July 6, 2016,
at 11:00 a.m. is VACATED and RESET to January 4, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom A401 of the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed pretrial order shall be submitted on
or before December 28, 2016. The proposed pretrial order to be submitted to the
Magistrate Judge under the ECF Procedures may be submitted in WordPerfect or pdf format
and shall be emailed to the Magistrate Judge at [e-mail].

Dated: April 22, 2016

-2-