From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trejo v. Franklin

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jun 28, 2006
Civil Action No. 04-cv-02523-REB-MJW (D. Colo. Jun. 28, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-cv-02523-REB-MJW.

June 28, 2006


ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S JUNE 6, 2006 ORDER ADDRESSING THE MOTION TO QUASH FILED BY DEPONENT PAUL LEWIS, M.D. (DOCKET NO. 198)


This matter is before the court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration of Court's June 6, 2006 Order Addressing the Motion to Quash Filed by Deponent Paul Lewis, M.D. (docket no. 198). The court has reviewed the motion and the responses (docket nos. 204 and 209). In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court's file and has considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiff's motion, although captioned as one requesting clarification and/or reconsideration, is really a motion requesting an extension of time to endorse expert witnesses against Defendant Paul Cohen, M.D. Plaintiff argues that this court did not address the deadline for experts to be disclosed as against Defendant Paul Cohen, M.D. Moreover, plaintiff asserts that delays in completing discovery were as a result of actions by counsel Matt Groves for Dr. Lewis and counsel Doug Wolanske for Dr. Graff, namely, the filing of motions which have caused delay in completing the depositions of Drs. Graff and Lewis by June 6, 2006. Accordingly, plaintiff argues that she has not been able to complete the necessary depositions to fully endorse expert witness opinions against Defendant Paul Cohen, M.D.

Defendants collectively argue that this court addressed the deadlines for experts when this court entered the Second Amended Joint Modified Scheduling Order. At that time, Defendants argue, the plaintiff was aware of her requirement to endorse experts against Defendant Paul Cohen, M.D., by June 6, 2006. Therefore, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's subject Motion is untimely since the subject Motion was filed with the court on June 15, 2006. Moreover, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's assertion that the depositions of Drs. Lewis and Graff were stopped through no fault of Plaintiff is unfounded. Defendants argue, in essence, that counsel for Plaintiff's refusal to provide pertinent medical records to Drs. Lewis and Graff prior to their depositions caused motions to be filed by counsel for Drs. Lewis and Graff. Accordingly, Defendants argue that any delay caused in discovery and the ability to endorse experts was due to Plaintiff's own actions.

Here, the court finds that both Plaintiff and Defendants have caused delays in the completion of discovery. This case has a tortured discovery history. See record of court proceedings. There have been numerous discovery disputes that this court has had to resolve. The trial on the merits is set to begin before Judge Blackburn on November 6, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. The trial preparation conference is set before Judge Blackburn on October 10, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. The discovery cut-off date is September 30, 2006, and the final pretrial conference is set before Magistrate Judge Watanabe on October 6, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. The dispositive motion deadline is August 30, 2006.

Based upon these findings, this court concludes that in the interest of justice and under the facts and circumstances of this case, Plaintiff should be given additional time to endorse her experts against Defendant Paul Cohen, M.D.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. That Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration of Court's June 6, 2006 Order Addressing the Motion to Quash Filed by Deponent Paul Lewis, M.D. (docket no. 198) is GRANTED.
2. That Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 18, 2006, to endorse her experts against Defendant Paul Cohen, M.D. Defendant Paul Cohen, M.D., shall have up to and including August 18, 2006, to endorse his experts against Plaintiff. The depositions of these experts shall be completed by the discovery cut-off date.
3. That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs.


Summaries of

Trejo v. Franklin

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jun 28, 2006
Civil Action No. 04-cv-02523-REB-MJW (D. Colo. Jun. 28, 2006)
Case details for

Trejo v. Franklin

Case Details

Full title:LETICIA TREJO, as Parent and Next Friend of ALMIR TREJO, a minor…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jun 28, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 04-cv-02523-REB-MJW (D. Colo. Jun. 28, 2006)