Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02050-CMA-KLM
08-08-2011
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR, Plaintiff, v. MAJOR C. HOLDITCH, SERGEANT ROBERTS, SERGEANT HALSTEAD, SERGEANT P. BINDER, C/O CRIDER, C/O FERGUSON, C/O MARTIN, C/O COOPER, C/O K. VIALPONDO, C/O ARCHULETA, C/O A. LOMBARD, SERGEANT POOL, and LIEUTENANT T. CHAVEZ, DOCTOR J. WRIGHT, and NURSE PRACTITIONER K. BOYD, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Docket No. 60; Filed July 28, 2011] (the "Motion"). As an initial matter, the Motion does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1. On several occasions, the Court has instructed Plaintiff regarding his obligations when filing a motion to compel discovery. The Court has also warned Plaintiff many times that his failure to satisfy these obligations will result in summary denial of the motion. Most recently, the Court advised Plaintiff as follows in Escobar v. Jones, No. 09-cv-02207-CMA-KLM, Docket No. 129 at 2 (D. Colo. July 14, 2011) (unpublished decision) (Minute Order denying a motion to compel) (emphasis original):
[A]ny motion to compel must comply with all applicable rules, including that
it must certify that Plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute with Defendants prior to seeking Court involvement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and must contain either a verbatim recitation of the discovery requests at issue or attach a copy of such requests pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1. The failure to comply with any applicable rule will result in the Motion to Compel being summarily denied.
Despite the Court's numerous admonishments, the instant Motion does not contain a certification that Plaintiff conferred with Defendants, and it does not set out the specific discovery requests at issue. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.