Guardians v. Lamar Utilities Board

Full title: WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, Plaintiff, v. LAMAR UTILITIES BOARD d/b/a LAMAR LIGHT…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: May 20, 2010

Civil Action No. 09-cv-02974-DME-BNB (D. Colo. May. 20, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09-cv-02974-DME-BNB.

May 20, 2010

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Leave to Amend Complaint [Doc. # 49, filed 4/30/2010] (the "Motion to Amend");

(2) Defendants' Motion to Compel Payment of Copy Expenses [Doc. # 50, filed 4/30/2010] (the "Motion for Payment");

(3) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Case Scheduling Order [Doc. # 54, filed 5/5/2010] (the "Motion for Extension"); and

(4) Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time [Doc. # 55, filed 5/5/2010].

I held a hearing on the motions this morning and made rulings on the record. In summary and for the reasons stated on the record:

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [Doc. # 49] is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to accept for filing the First Amended Complaint [Doc. # 49-1].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Payment [Doc. # 50] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension [Doc. # 54] is GRANTED, and the case schedule is modified to the following extent:

Expert Disclosures:

(a) The plaintiffs shall designate any expert on the issue of mercury emissions and control technology and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) on or before June 14, 2010

(b) The defendants shall designate any expert in rebuttal to the plaintiffs' mercury emissions and control technology expert and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) on or before August 2, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Shorten Time [Doc. # 55] is DENIED.