Doe et al v. Woodard et al

Filing 38

MINUTE ORDER; 32 County Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED as moot and the 37 County Defendants' Amended Motion to Stay Discovery: Unopposed is DENIED without prejudice, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/24/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01165-KLM
JANE DOE, and
I.B., by her mother and next friend, Jane Doe,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APRIL WOODARD, El Paso County Department of Human Services caseworker,
individually;
CHRISTINA NEWBILL, Supervisor, El Paso County Department of Human Services,
individually;
SHIRLEY RHODUS, Children, Youth and Family Services Director, El Paso County
Department of Human Services, individually;
RICHARD BENGTSSON, individually, and in his official capacity as Executive Director, El
Paso County Department of Human Services for prospective relief;
REGGIE BICHA, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services, in his
official capacity for prospective relief; and
EL PASO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, comprised of Sallie Clark,
Darryl Glenn, Dennis Hisey, Amy Lathen, and Peggy Littleton, in their official capacity,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the County Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Discovery [#32]1 (the “First Motion”) and the County Defendants’ Amended Motion to
Stay Discovery: Unopposed [#37] (the “Second Motion”). The Second Motion requests
the same relief as the First Motion and clarifies that the requested relief is unopposed.
Accordingly, the First Motion is moot. The Second Motion requests a stay of “the case
pending resolution of all dispositive motions.” Second Motion [#37] at 2. However, on

1

“[#32]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Minute Order.

1

August 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint [#34],2 which rendered moot
the only pending dispositive motion. See Minute Order [#36] at 1-2 (denying County
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [#31] as moot). As a
result, there are no pending dispositive motions in this case. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Motion [#32] is DENIED as moot and the
Second Motion [#37] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: August 24, 2015

2

The Court reminds Defendants that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3) governs their deadline to
respond to the First Amended Complaint.

2