City of Las Cruces et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 129

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS by U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix re 123 Joint MOTION to Extend (other) Case Management Deadlines filed by Dona Ana County, City of Las Cruces. Objections to R&R due by 12/24/2018. Add 3 days to the deadline if service is by mailing it to the person's last known address (or means described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D) and (F)); if service is by electronic means, no additional days are added. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(c).) (bap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00809-REB-KLM
CITY OF LAS CRUCES,
DONA ANA COUNTY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU,
THE LOFTS AT ALAMEDA, LLC,
AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY OF NEW MEXICO, INC.,
RAWSON LEASING LIMITED LIABILITY CO.,
JOSE AND YVONNE CORONADO,
CHISHOLM’S-VILLAGE PLAZA LLC, and
DOES 1-5,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Case
Management Deadlines [#123]1 (the “Motion”). The Motion has been referred to the
undersigned for recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See [#128]. Having
reviewed the entire case file and being sufficiently advised, the Motion [#123] is GRANTED
in part, and the Court further respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Motion [#123] be
GRANTED in part.

1

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

-1-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#123] is GRANTED in part as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
shall provide all disclosures required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) & (C) no later
than February 21, 2019.
(2) The United States Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, The Lofts
at Alameda, LLC, American Linen Supply of New Mexico, Inc., Rawson Leasing Limited
Liability Co., Jose and Yvonne Coronado, and Chisholm’s-Village Plaza, LLC shall provide
all disclosures required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) & (C) no later than March
27, 2019.
(3) The United States Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, The Lofts
at Alameda, LLC, American Linen Supply of New Mexico, Inc., Rawson Leasing Limited
Liability Co., Jose and Yvonne Coronado, and Chisholm’s-Village Plaza, LLC shall serve
any rebuttal reports to those reports submitted by Plaintiffs no later than March 27, 2019.
(4) Plaintiffs shall serve any rebuttal reports to those reports submitted by
Counterclaim-Plaintiff EPA no later than March 27, 2019.
(5) Counterclaim-Plaintiff EPA shall serve any rebuttal reports to those submitted by
Plaintiffs no later than March 27, 2019.
(6) Plaintiffs shall serve any rebuttal reports to the United States Department of
Defense, the National Guard Bureau, The Lofts at Alameda, LLC, American Linen Supply
of New Mexico, Inc., Rawson Leasing Limited Liability Co., Jose and Yvonne Coronado,
and Chisholm’s-Village Plaza, LLC no later than April 24, 2019.
(7) All parties shall serve any Supplemental Expert Reports no later than May 16,
2019.
(8) The close of discovery is extended to June 26, 2019.
-2-

(9) The deadline to bring motions relating to discovery to the attention of the
Magistrate Judge is extended to July 12, 2019.2
(10) The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to August 26, 2019.
(11) A proposed consolidated final pretrial order shall be submitted by Plaintiffs to
Defendants no later than November 11, 2019.
(12) A proposed consolidated final pretrial order shall be submitted by Defendants
to the Court no later than November 25, 2019.
In addition, the Court notes sua sponte that the Initial Pretrial Conference set for
November 15, 2019, the Final Pretrial Conference set for December 13, 2019, and the 16day Bench Trial set to begin on January 27, 2020, were all set before this case was
transferred to Senior Judge Blackburn and the undersigned. Consequently, these dates
are not technically on Judge Blackburn’s calendar. Accordingly, after consultation with
Judge Blackburn’s Chambers,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED sua sponte that the Initial Pretrial Conference set for
November 15, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED sua sponte that the Final Pretrial Conference set for
December 13, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED sua sponte that the 16-day Bench Trial set to begin on
January 27, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. is VACATED.
Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Motion [#123] be GRANTED in part, as

2

As a reminder, the parties are directed to review the practice standards of the Magistrate
Judge, which can be found at www.cod.uscourts.gov. In short, the Magistrate Judge handles
discovery disputes by hearing and does not permit the filing of written discovery motions.

-3-

follows:
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that an Initial Pretrial Conference be SET on the
Senior Judge’s calendar.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Final Pretrial Conference be SET on the
Senior Judge’s calendar.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a 16-day Bench Trial be SET on the Senior
Judge’s calendar.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the parties shall
have fourteen (14) days after service of this Recommendation to serve and file any written
objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is
assigned. A party’s failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo
review of the Recommendation by the District Judge, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985), and also waives appellate review of both factual and legal
questions. Makin v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 1999); Talley v.
Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir. 1996).

A party’s objections to this

Recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review
by the District Court or for appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73
F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).

Dated: December 6, 2018

-4-