Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03414-PAB-KLM
06-14-2012
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Scheduling Order [Docket No. 31; Filed June 13, 2012] and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 33; Filed June 13, 2012].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time [#31] is GRANTED. The parties shall file a proposed scheduling order on or before June 14, 2012. The proposed scheduling order located at Docket No. 34 is STRICKEN as incomplete.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#33] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to fully comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. Plaintiff states that his counsel conferred, but "opposing counsel has not yet responded." Plaintiff offers no details about the attempt to confer, i.e., by what means, and how much time passed between his attempt to confer and the filing of the instant motion, thus the Court is unable to evaluate the adequacy of Plaintiff's 7.1A. certification. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1A. requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail).