Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-02240_de110> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02240_de110 RegisterActionDate "2018-04-18" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02240_de110 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER This matter is before the Court on 109 Plaintiff's Motion to Reset the Final Pretrial Conference (the "Motion"). Plaintiff requests that the Final Pretrial Conference, which is currently set for 5/03/2018, be rescheduled "for a date after the hearings on discovery disputes, disclosure issues, and sanctions are completed and after Summary Judgment Motion ruling." [#109 at 3] With regard to the purported discovery issues, as Plaintiff is aware, this Court's Civil Practice Standards provide an expedited procedure for the resolution of discovery disputes that avoids unnecessary and expensive motion practice. No discovery issues have been raised with the Court since the close of discovery on 1/16/2018. Any additional discovery issues raised with the Court now--over three months after the close of discovery--would face significant timeliness concerns. See Spacecon Specialty Contractors, LLC v. Bensinger, No. 09-CV-02080-REB-KLM, 2011 WL 782677, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 1, 2011) (denying motion to compel as untimely where moving party failed to provide "a compelling reason for waiting until the Final Pretrial Conference to bring [the] dispute to the Court's attention"). Regardless, the hypothetical discovery issues mentioned in the Motion do not provide good cause for continuing the Final Pretrial Conference. Nor does the pending Motion for Summary Judgment provide good cause for continuing the Final Pretrial Conference. It is common in this District for the Court to proceed with final pretrial conferences while motions for summary judgment are pending, in part, because many of the District Judges, including Judge Arguello, do not set a matter for trial until the final pretrial conference. Waiting for a ruling on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment prior to conducting the Final Pretrial Conference thus would significantly and needlessly delay any trial of this matter. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 4/18/2018. Text Only Entry (stvlc1, ) (Entered: 04/18/2018)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02240_de110 AdministrativeID "111" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02240_de110 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02240_de110 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-02240_de108 @default.