Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01522-MSK-KMT
02-08-2012
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff's "Motion to Move the Case Forward" (Doc. No. 90, filed Feb. 2. 2012) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court notes that this case is "mov[ing] . . . forward on all proceedings." Although Plaintiff appears to believe that these proceedings have been stayed pursuant to the parties' "Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings" (Doc. No. 66, filed Nov. 14, 2011), no stay was ultimately entered. (See Doc. No. 69, filed Nov. 14, 2011.) Rather the court vacated the Scheduling Conference set for December 8, 2011, and the parties were ordered to file a status report advising the court whether the Settlement Conference should be reset. (See id.) Additionally, while the court continued the deadlines for Defendants' replies in support of their motions for summary judgment and to dismiss (see Doc. No. 72, filed Nov. 21, 2011), it has since ordered Defendants to file their replies no later than February 13, 2012 (see Doc. No. 89, filed Jan. 27, 2011).
To the extent that Plaintiff's motion appears to seeks to have the Scheduling Conference reset, the court notes that a Scheduling Conference is not required in this matter. More specifically, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv), pro se actions brought by individuals in the custody
of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision are a category of proceedings "exempt from initial disclosure." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). Additionally, the local rules of this court provide that a scheduling order and orders for discovery are unnecessary in categories of proceedings listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2.B.2. The court will determine at a later date when and if a scheduling conference will be set.