Brightview Landscapes, LLC v. Consolidated Divisions Inc. et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 9 Unopposed Motion for Hearing on Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Discovery. A hearing on the Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom A 601 before Judge Raymond P. Moore. ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 9/19/2017. (cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No.: 17-cv-02165-RM-MEH
BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONSOLIDATED DIVISIONS, INC., a Colorado Corporation,
DANIEL LEVINE, an individual,
RICHARD PETERS, an individual, and
JASON SESKO, an individual,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Hearing on
Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Discovery1 (“Motion”) (ECF No. 9), which requests
(1) the Court to set a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2); and
(2) leave to conduct expedited discovery to be completed prior to any preliminary injunction
hearing. Upon consideration of the Motion, and the court file, and being otherwise fully advised,
the Court finds Plaintiff has established good cause for granting the Motion. See, e.g., Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(d) (timing and sequence of discovery may be altered by court order); Pod-Ners, LLC
v. Northern Feed & Bean of Lucerne Ltd. Liab. Co., 204 F.R.D. 675, 676 (D. Colo. 2002)
(expedited discovery may be granted upon a showing of good cause or where plaintiff seeks a

1

Defendant Peters takes no position on the Motion; the other Defendants, subject to a caveat, do not oppose.

preliminary injunction). And, in light of Defendants’2 stated basis for their non-opposition to the
Motion and Plaintiff’s counsel’s affirmative representation that they will work with Defendants’
counsel on reasonable terms for expedited discovery, at this time the Court will not (other than as
stated herein) issue specific orders governing the scope of discovery to be had. The Court
expects all parties (whether represented or not) to work together to establish a reasonable
expedited discovery plan. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on such a plan, or
should issues arise concerning the scope of or any other matter regarding the expedited
discovery, the parties shall jointly contact the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty
with any issues or disputes. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS3 as follows:
(1) That Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Hearing on Preliminary Injunction and for
Expedited Discovery (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED as stated herein;
(2) That a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) is set for
Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom A601, at the Alfred A. Arraj
United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado;
(3) That Plaintiff is granted leave to conduct the following expedited discovery related to
its Motion for Preliminary Injunction: (i) Plaintiff may depose Defendants and other
relevant witnesses upon four business days’ notice; and (ii) Plaintiff may issue written
discovery to which Defendants shall respond within ten (10) calendar days from the
service thereof; and

2

Except Defendant Peters, who is currently unrepresented.
The parties are also directed to review and comply with Judge Raymond P. Moore’s Civil Practice Standards
governing evidentiary hearings.
3

2

(4) That the parties shall jointly contact the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Michael E.
Hegarty with any expedited discovery issues.
DATED this 19th day of September, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3