Castro et al v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 39

MINUTE ORDER; Plaintiffs' 35 Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order to Serve Expert Disclosures Out of Time is GRANTED. To the extent Plaintiffs disclosed their expert witnesses on or before September 22, 2015, suchdisclosures are deemed timely served, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/26/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00208-MSK-KLM
DAVID CASTRO, and
PATRICIA CASTRO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Scheduling
Order to Serve Expert Disclosures Out of Time [#35] (the “Motion”). In the Motion,
Plaintiffs note that Defendant opposes the requested relief. 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-MSK-MEH, 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 the Motion, Plaintiffs seek
an eleven-day extension of their deadline to disclose expert witnesses. Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested
extension.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#35] is GRANTED. To the extent
Plaintiffs disclosed their expert witnesses on or before September 22, 2015, such
disclosures are deemed timely served.

Dated: October 26, 2015