From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kerner v. City & Cnty. of Denver

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Mar 9, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00256-MSK-KMT (D. Colo. Mar. 9, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00256-MSK-KMT

03-09-2012

MARIAN G. KERNER, and JACOBO GONZALES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, Defendant.


Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

FTR - Courtroom C-201

Deputy Clerk, Nick Richards

Kenneth Alfredo Padilla

Joaquin Gabriel Padilla

Joseph Michael Rivera

COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER

MOTION HEARING

Court in session: 1:08 p.m.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. Plaintiff's Marian G. Kerner and Jacobo Gonzales are also present with counsel.

Motion Hearing is called regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's to Respond to Plaintiff's Written Discovery [Doc. No. 31, filed December 16, 2011], Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery for Class Certification [Doc. No. 37, filed January 11, 2012], and Plaintiff's Motion to Reset Deadlines for Filing Class Certification Briefs [Doc. No. 38, filed January 11, 2012].

Oral argument from plaintiff.

Oral argument from defendant.

It is ORDERED: Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 12, filed May 26, 2011] is amended. Section 8(a) is amended to reflect an additional 10 interrogatories and 10 requests for production for each side. Therefore, each side shall be limited to 35 interrogatories and 35 requests for production. Requests for admission will not be amended and shall remain at 40 per side.

It is ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery for Class Certification [37] and Motion to Reset Deadlines for Filing Class Certification Briefs [38] are GRANTED. Based on the factors in Sil-flo, Inc. v. Sfhc, Inc., 917 F.2d 1507 (10th Cir. 1990), additional discovery is necessary to determine class certification. The parties shall file simultaneous class certification briefs on or before July 13, 2012. Simultaneous response briefs shall be filed on or before August 10, 2012.

It is ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's to Respond to Plaintiff's Written Discovery [31] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant shall supplement responses to Interrogatory No. 1, Request for Production No. 5, and Request for Admission Nos. 10, 11, and 12 on or before April 8, 2012.

Defendant shall consult with Ms. Roberta Monaco on examining plaintiff's exhibit 1, which is attached to these minutes, and determine why names on exhibit 1 are not on the City and County of Denver's master list of all persons to whom the AccuPlacer test was administered as identified by the defendant in response to plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 2. Defendant shall file documentation explaining the discrepancies to the court on or before April 8, 2012.

Class certification discovery cut-off is set for June 29, 2012.

The motion is DENIED with respect to attorney fees as stated on the record.

Court in Recess: 2:22 p.m.

Hearing concluded.

Total In-Court Time 01:14

*To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119.


Summaries of

Kerner v. City & Cnty. of Denver

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Mar 9, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00256-MSK-KMT (D. Colo. Mar. 9, 2012)
Case details for

Kerner v. City & Cnty. of Denver

Case Details

Full title:MARIAN G. KERNER, and JACOBO GONZALES, on behalf of themselves and all…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Mar 9, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00256-MSK-KMT (D. Colo. Mar. 9, 2012)