From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dunn v. Shinseki

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 4, 2012
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02754-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02754-PAB-MEH

01-04-2012

GAYLE DUNN, Plaintiff, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary, United States Department of Veteran Affairs, Defendant.


Judge Philip A. Brimmer


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion and Motion to Continue Final Pretrail [sic] Confernce [sic] [Docket No. 43]. Plaintiff contends that, in light of a December 31, 2011 order [Docket No. 42] of the magistrate judge granting a portion of plaintiff's motion to compel production and to re-open discovery [Docket No. 29], she should receive a sixteen-day extension of time to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's response was originally due on December 22, 2011. The Court previously denied plaintiff's Motion to Stay Deadline to File Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Resolution of Discovery Issues [Docket No. 33] and Renewed Motion to Stay Deadline to File Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Resolution of Discovery Issues [Docket Nos. 36, 39]. In denying plaintiff's renewed motion on December 21, 2011, the Court sua sponte extended plaintiff's time to respond to the motion for summary judgment until January 4, 2012. See Docket No. 40 at 2. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to articulate good cause for another extension. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment on or before January 4, 2012. In the event plaintiff deems any additional discovery received after that date to be relevant to the issues raised in defendant's motion, plaintiff can seek leave to supplement her response.

In the present order, the Court addresses only plaintiff's request for extension of time.

For the foregoing reasons, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion and Motion to Continue Final Pretrail [sic] Confernce [sic] [Docket No. 43] is denied to the extent it seeks an extension of time to respond to defendant's summary judgment motion.

BY THE COURT:

________________

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Dunn v. Shinseki

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 4, 2012
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02754-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2012)
Case details for

Dunn v. Shinseki

Case Details

Full title:GAYLE DUNN, Plaintiff, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary, United States…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 4, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02754-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2012)