Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00183-WDM-MEH.
August 18, 2006
ORDER
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to provide Rule 26(a) disclosures [Filed August 10, 2006; Docket #32] is denied without prejudice. The Court first notes that Plaintiff failed to comply with D.C.Colo.L.Civ.R. 7.1.A, Duty to Confer and did not include the extension of time that is requested. Even so, Defendant did file a Response to this Motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided good cause to for this extension of time, nor shown any evidence of his desire to prosecute this case through participation in the discovery process, as ordered by this Court.
In addition, the Court notes that according to Defendant' Response, Plaintiff failed to attend his deposition noticed for August 3, 2006; he did not seek a Protective Order from this Court allowing him to miss this deposition. Plaintiff is hereby warned that failure to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules with regard to participation in the discovery process could result in the dismissal of his case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
While the Court cannot order Plaintiff to attend a deposition on a date certain under the current posture of this case (Defendant must seek relief through a separate motion to compel not through a response, D.C.Colo.L.Civ.R. 7.1.C.), Plaintiff is directed to D.C.Colo.L.Civ.R. 30.1.A, which requires a witness to attend a properly-noticed deposition. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions, including but no limited to payment of the opposing party's attorney's fees or dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute.