Richter v. City of Commerce City, Colorado et al
Filing
43
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 40 Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 02/24/2016.(mdave, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01826-MEH
DEREK M. RICHTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF COMMERCE CITY, COLORADO,
TROY SMITH, in his individual capacity,
DAVID CUBBAGE, in his individual capacity, and
KAREN STEVENS, in her individual capacity,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 24, 2016.
The Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit
Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action [filed February 22, 2016; docket #40] is denied without
prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a), which states,
Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented party
shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any opposing
counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The moving party
shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific
efforts to fulfill this duty.
The motion does not fall under any exception listed in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(b). The Court reminds
the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a). See
Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1(a) requires
meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party
a single email, letter or voicemail).
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?