Handy, Jr. v. Guerrero-Diaz et al

Filing 117

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 115 Unopposed Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/07/2016.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03291-WYD-MEH
WYATT T. HANDY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA GUERRERO-DIAZ,
KELLY LEHMAN, and
SAHIB BROWN,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 7, 2016.
Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order [filed March 4, 2016;
docket #115] is denied without prejudice. The Court construes the Motion as a request to stay the
case pending District Judge Wiley Y. Daniel’s decision regarding this Court’s Recommendation.
See docket #107. While the parties in the Motion request indefinite extensions of deadlines, the
Scheduling Order sets dates certain; thus, any amendments to that Order also require dates certain,
which the Court recognizes are not possible to ascertain at this point.
Thus, should the parties wish to re-file the Motion, they may do so pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(c), which allows a court to issue a protective order and thereby stay discovery. Wang v. Hsu,
919 F.2d 130, 130 (10th Cir. 1990). Such protection is warranted, upon a showing of good cause,
to protect a party or person from undue burden or expense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).