JDK LLC et al v. Hodge et al

Filing 127

ORDER denying 125 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify. By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 3/30/16. (nywlc1)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 15-cv-00494-PAB-NYW JDK LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, DEBORAH KOLASSA, JERRY KOLASSA, and S. MARK SPOONE, Plaintiffs, v. PAUL A. TALBOT, MAX 1 FINANCIAL LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and BROOKE TALBOT, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang This civil action is before the court on Plaintiff S. Mark Spoone’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion to Amend Scheduling Order; to Compel Deposition of Paul A. Talbot” (the “Motion”). [#125, filed March 28, 2016]. This matter was referred to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Order of Reference dated May 14, 2015 [#41], and the memorandum dated March 29, 2016 [#126]. On March 22, 2016, this court granted a joint motion to extend the discovery deadline to March 28, 2016. See [#123]. The instant Motion asks the court to extend this deadline again for the purpose of taking the deposition of Defendant Paul Talbot, whose deposition, scheduled for March 23, 2016, was unilaterally canceled by Plaintiff’s counsel due to inclement weather. See [#125]. Defendant Talbot opposes the Motion. The Honorable Philip A. Brimmer, the presiding judge in this matter, requires that any motion seeking an extension of time be filed no later than three days prior to the deadline at issue. PAB Practice Standards I.G.2. The instant Motion was filed on the last day of discovery, in contravention of Judge Brimmer’s Practice Standards. Furthermore, I do not find that Plaintiff has stated good cause for the requested extension. See PAB Practice Standards I.G.1. Plaintiff knew as of March 23 that re-scheduling Defendant Talbot’s deposition was the subject of a dispute yet failed to contact the court to engage in any type of informal discovery dispute process. Additionally, it is unclear from the Motion why counsel for Plaintiff was not prepared to at least start Defendant Talbot’s deposition on March 24, when he was presumably prepared to proceed with the entire deposition on March 23 but for the weather. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Scheduling Order; to Compel Deposition of Paul A. Talbot [#125] is DENIED. DATED: March 30, 2016 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?