Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 58 Respondents' Motion to Strike. ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 3/22/2019. (cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02547-RM-KMT
GOLDGROUP RESOURCES, INC.,
Applicant,
v.
DYNARESOURCE DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V., and
DYNARESOURCE, INC.,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Respondents’ Motion to Strike (the “Motion”) (ECF
No. 58) seeking to preclude Applicant from relying on Exhibit A, referenced in footnote 3 of its
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to grant Respondents’ petition to vacate an
arbitration award. Exhibit A is stated to be the appeal of the Amparo Order upon which the
Magistrate Judge relied in issuing the Recommendation. Applicant filed a response to the
Motion, to which Respondents filed a reply. The matter is ripe for resolution.
Respondents raise three arguments in support of their Motion: (1) Applicant allegedly
waived any ability to use Exhibit A as it was never presented to the Magistrate Judge before
issuing the Recommendation; (2) Exhibit A is written in Spanish and has not been translated; and
(3) Exhibit A’s authenticity, reliability, and completeness are “highly questionable.” Applicant
responds that (1) there has been no waiver as the Amparo appeal became relevant in light of the
Magistrate Judge’s reliance on the Amparo Order; (2) the Court may rely on the Amparo appeal,

even if in Spanish, for the limited purpose of showing an appeal is pending, plus Applicant is
submitting a partial translation and Declaration verifying the fact of the appeal; and (3) Applicant
has provided ample information to show the Amparo Order is on appeal and non-final.
Respondents’ reply raises the same matters as their Motion, and argues the additional papers
Applicant submitted to show the Amparo Order is on appeal should be stricken or disregarded.
Upon review, the Court rejects Respondents’ arguments.
First, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) specifically states, that in resolving objections, “the district
judge may … receive further evidence.” Thus, the Court may receive Exhibit A.
Next, considering the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on the Amparo Order, the Court finds it
should receive Exhibit A. The effect, if any, of Exhibit A on the issues is another matter and will
be addressed in the order resolving Applicant’s objection.
Third, it was Respondents who challenged the authenticity, reliability, and completeness
of Exhibit A, and Applicant responded by presenting evidence to address that challenge.
It is therefore ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 58) is DENIED.
DATED this 22nd day of March, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2