Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00737-MSK-KLM
01-27-2012
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Re-Open Discovery [Docket No. 506; Filed January 24, 2012] (the "Motion"). "Whether to extend or reopen discovery is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court . . . ." Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 169 (10th Cir. 1987). The Tenth Circuit
identified several relevant factors in reviewing decisions concerning whether discovery should be reopened, including: 1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.Smith, 834 F.2d at 169 (citation omitted).
Although Defendants oppose the relief sought, the Court finds that review of the Smith factors in the context of Plaintiff's request weighs in favor of re-opening discovery for the limited purpose of conducting the depositions identified herein. Accordingly,
A judicial officer may rule on a motion at any time after it is filed. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED as follows. Discovery is re-opened for the limited purpose of Plaintiff conducting the following depositions: 1) Defendant Hall, for no more than two hours; 2) Defendant Webster, for no more than two hours; 3) Defendant McCormick, for no more than two hours; 4) Defendant Piper, for no more than two hours; 5) Jose Medellin, for no more than one hour; 6) Paul Hollenbeck, for no more than two hours; and 7) Nurse Jane Doe, once (and if) identified, for no more than two hours. All seven depositions must be completed on or before March 15, 2012.