Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02273-WJM-KLM
04-02-2012
ONESOURCE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation, and AFFORDABLE SWEEPING, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, APRIL HENDERSON, CALVIN BLACK, KEN GREENE, and XAVIER DURAN, Defendants.
Judge William J. Martínez
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE THE ATTACHED
CORRECTED BRIEF AND EXHIBIT #31
Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment on February 17, 2012. (ECF No. 116, 117, and 118.) Plaintiff filed her opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment on March 12, 2012, the day it was due. (ECF No. 132.) Three days later, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to file a corrected brief in opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 134.) The Court struck Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave because it failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1A. (ECF No. 135.)
Plaintiffs' refiled Motion for Leave to File the Attached Corrected Brief and Exhibit #31 in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment ("Motion") (ECF No. 136) is currently before the Court. Plaintiffs contend that the corrected brief is necessary because their original opposition brief contains "about a dozen incorrect or incomplete cites" that were "inadvertent errors." (ECF No. 136 at 1-2.) Plaintiffs also seek to add an exhibit—the deposition of Defendant William Baca—which was omitted from the original opposition brief. (Id. at 2.)
Defendants oppose the Motion and argue that "these inadvertent errors could have and should have been discovered before Plaintiffs' Response was filed." (ECF No. 140 at 2.) Defendants also contend Plaintiffs have failed to give any reason for their failure to include Defendant Baca's deposition. (Id. at 3.)
The Court agrees with Defendants in that the sloppiness of Plaintiffs' original opposition brief is unacceptable. Errors in Court filings are common but rarely has the Court seen an instance in which a party admits that it has more than ten incorrect citations in its briefing. Both Defendants and the Court have expended time and effort in dealing with this Motion that could have been avoided if Plaintiffs' counsel had taken more time to review her opposition brief and supporting documents before they were filed with the Court. The Court will not tolerate such inattention to detail by Plaintiffs' counsel in the future. Further motions of this sort will be subjected to significantly higher scrutiny.
However, in this instance, Defendants have failed to show that allowing Plaintiffs to file their substitute opposition brief will cause Defendants any prejudice. Plaintiffs' counsel has represented that the errors and omissions are inadvertent and the Court has no reason to doubt this candor. Ultimately, it is beneficial for both Defendants and the Court that Plaintiffs' brief correctly cite the relevant portions of the record and that all material evidence be part of the record.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to File the Attached Corrected Brief and Exhibit #31 in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 136) is GRANTED. The Court will ACCEPT the "Corrected-Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment" (ECF No. 136-1) as filed. Defendants shall file their reply brief to the Motions for Summary Judgment not later than April 16, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
____________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge