Johnson v. Pelle

Filing 71

MINUTE ORDER denying 65 Motion to Compel Answers to Additional Discovery Request by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/11/2015. Defendants need not follow the Courts directive to file a response to the Motion to Compel by 12/21/2015 [see docket #65].(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00105-MSK-MEH
ANDREW LYNN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOE PELLE,
REVADA FARNSWORTH, and
BRUCE HAAS,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 11, 2015.
Upon further review of the docket in this case, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Answers to Additional Discovery Request [filed December 2, 2015; docket #65] was filed
improperly and is, thus, denied without prejudice.
The deadline for discovery in this case was November 30, 2015, two days before Plaintiff
filed this Motion [see docket #50]. Thus, should Plaintiff want to request additional discovery, he
would first need to seek leave of the Court to extend the discovery deadline, demonstrating good
cause to do so pursuant to D.C. Colo. LCivR 6.1(b) by explaining why an extension is required, the
length of the requested extension of time, and the total number of extensions granted previously.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s Motion fails to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1.
Pursuant to that Rule, discovery motions must set forth in the text of the motion or in an exhibit to
the motion the specific interrogatory, request, or response to which the motion is directed.
Therefore, should Plaintiff wish to re-file his Motion, he also must first provide to Defendants the
questions he seeks answered, and then submit those questions to the Court along with his motion
to compel.
In light of this Minute Order, Defendants need not follow the Court’s directive to file a
response to the Motion to Compel by December 21, 2015 [see docket #65].