Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00324-WDM-KLM.
July 14, 2008
ORDER
Defendant moves for continuance of the trial date because of the scheduled birth of Defendant's lead counsel's child. Defendant correctly addresses the factors to be considered as established by the Tenth Circuit. See United States v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1469 (10th Cir. 1987). Defendant emphasizes importance of a client being able to choose the attorney who represents it. Plaintiff responded only after the issuance of a show cause order. Plaintiff correctly notes that it has the desire to have the case tried as quickly as possible after at least two years delay. Otherwise, Plaintiff raises only the specter of a long delay in trial setting as well as the possible inconvenience to its president's travel schedule.
Applying the West factors, I conclude that the Defendant was diligent in requesting the continuance and, if granted, the continuance would accomplish the purpose for which the continuance is requested. The inconvenience to the Plaintiff is not clear and other than further delay I see no prejudice to the Plaintiff. In fact, the fear of significant delay in rescheduling the trial is misplaced as this court's calendar has ample room before the end of May 2009. Accordingly, it would not appear that any prejudice should be more than a few months delay in the ultimate decision-making. When balanced against the Defendant's interest in being represented by counsel of its choice, the apparent slight inconvenience of rescheduling does not make a continuance arbitrary or unreasonable.
Accordingly, it is ordered:
1. The parties shall immediately reschedule the trial preparation conference and trial date for this matter, no later than August 1, 2008;
2. Upon rescheduling the existing trial preparation and trial dates shall be vacated.