From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carnation Bldg. Servs., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 7, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00703-CMA-MEH (D. Colo. Sep. 7, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00703-CMA-MEH

09-07-2012

CARNATION BUILDING SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant.


MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on September 7, 2012.

Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery [filed September 4, 2012; docket #74] is denied without prejudice for failure to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. The Court reminds the parties that it "will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel." D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A (emphasis added). Because Rule 7.1A requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003).


Summaries of

Carnation Bldg. Servs., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 7, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00703-CMA-MEH (D. Colo. Sep. 7, 2012)
Case details for

Carnation Bldg. Servs., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver

Case Details

Full title:CARNATION BUILDING SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Sep 7, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00703-CMA-MEH (D. Colo. Sep. 7, 2012)