Opinion
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00778-REB-MEH
12-14-2015
UNITES STATES WELDING, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. TECSYS, INC., a Canadian corporation, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte.
This case presents complicated issues of causation and damages. From January 2015 to the present, this Court has worked to assist the parties in attempting to resolve numerous discovery issues concerning damages, some of which remain outstanding. These proceedings have prolonged this case much longer than expected. The Court's and parties' efforts may require additional time and will intrude upon the currently scheduled trial preparation conference and trial. Indeed, I do not believe the current schedule will permit the parties to adequately prepare for trial. For this reason, I believe some relief from the current trial date is necessary.
Should Judge Blackburn's schedule permit, Defendant seeks to continue the trial to April, May, September or October of 2016, and the Plaintiff seeks to continue the trial to a date as soon as Judge Blackburn's calendar permits. The parties expect that they can complete their presentation of evidence to a jury in eight trial days.
Accordingly, as the parties currently desire to focus their efforts on completing discovery (including expert discovery) before trial, this Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Trial Preparation Conference set for January 22, 2016, and the trial date set for February 8, 2016, be vacated and reset as Judge Blackburn's calendar permits.
Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual and legal findings of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir.1991)). --------
Respectfully submitted at Denver, Colorado, this 14th day of December, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge