Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-02319-WDM-BNB.
April 10, 2007
ORDER
The parties appeared this morning for what was scheduled to be a scheduling conference. Pending at the time of the scheduling conference were the following:
(1) Motion to Stay Discovery of Defendant Gallegos [Doc. # 19, filed 3/28/2007] ("Gallegos' Motion to Stay");
(2) Arapahoe Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Based on Qualified Immunity [Doc. # 33, filed 3/29/2007] ("Arapahoe Defendants' Motion to Stay"); and
(3) Motion to Continue Scheduling Conference [Doc. # 41, filed 4/2/2007] (the "Motion to Continue").
I made rulings on the record concerning the pending motions, which are incorporated here by reference. In summary and for the reasons stated on the record:
IT IS ORDERED that the Gallegos' Motion to Stay and the Arapahoe Defendants' Motion to Stay are DENIED. The defendants may file motions for protective orders, if necessary, directed to any unnecessary and broad-reaching discovery as discussed in Rome v. Romero, 225 F.R.D. 640 (D. Colo. 2004).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Continue is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a supplemental scheduling conference is set for May 4, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 2, 4th floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties shall confer and submit a proposed scheduling order on or before April 30, 2007.