Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-00384-JLK-CBS

Document 64

Filed 07/05/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane Civil Action No. 01-cv-00384-JLK (CBS ) S TEVEN H. GLAES ER, Plaintiff, v. ACADEMY S CHOOL DIS TRICT 20, KATHLEEN A. CRUME, HEIDI V. PACE, S IERRA MARCELLA PETERS , JEFF PETERS , CAROL PETERS and JANE DOES #1 THROUGH 10 AND JOHN DOES #1 THROUGH 5, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND THIRD AMENDED S CHEDULING ORDER Kane, J. This matter is before me on Plaintiff Steven H. Glaeser' M otion to Amend s Scheduling O rder, filed June 23, 2005. In his M otion, Glaeser seeks to extend the operative June 22, 2005 discovery cutoff date to September 15, 2005, and the disposit ive motions deadline t o October 13, 2005 in order to finalize negotiations with new counsel and allow that counsel to familiarize himself with the case. The operative scheduling order in this cas e has already been amended twice ­ once in November 2004 as a result of a stay of proceedings ordered by the Court and the second time at Glaeser' request in M arch 2005 aft er his counsel withdrew from representing him. s At the time I granted that request, Glaeser had already failed t o appear for his deposition

Case 1:01-cv-00384-JLK-CBS

Document 64

Filed 07/05/2005

Page 2 of 3

and I admonished him he must comply with the Scheduling Order or face the consequences of failing t o do s o, including the possible dismissal of his claims. Nevertheless, when his deposition was rescheduled for April 18, 2005, G laeser again failed (or refused) to appear. Defendants moved to dis mis s Glaeser' Complaint, and I held a hearing on that s M otion on M ay 19, 2005. Rather than dismiss his Complaint, I gave Glaeser an additional 30-day extension to secure counsel and appear for his deposition, but w arned him his claims would be dismissed if he failed to do so. Glaeser apparently informed Defendants he could not be available unt il J une 14, 2005 for his deposition, and the first date that worked for all concerned was June 24, 2005. The fact this dat e w as two days outside the June 22, 2005 discovery cutoff date does not, as Glaeser suggests in his filings , cons t itute a" waiver"of the June 22, 2005 discovery cutoff date by Defendants. In short, I have been most solicitous of M r. Glaeser in the past seven months. Glaeser has now had four months to secure counsel and seek furt her ext ensions or amendments of the Scheduling Order, but waited until the dis covery cutoff date had run to do so. T his alone is grounds for denying his M otion. The M otion is denied in any

event, however, because Glaeser has failed to demonstrate good cause for the relief sought. The timing of his M otion and his failures t o ap p ear for his scheduled deposition demonstrate he has not been diligent in his discovery efforts, see Colorado Visionary Academy v. Medtronic, Inc., 194 F.R.D. 684, 687 (D. Colo. 2000), even under the most liberal view of the standards expected of pro se litigants. On the record before me and in fairness

Case 1:01-cv-00384-JLK-CBS

Document 64

Filed 07/05/2005

Page 3 of 3

to the Defendants, no further modification of the Scheduling Order is warranted. The M otion to Amend (Third Amended) Scheduling Order is DENIED.

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 5th day of July, 2005.

s/John L. Kane SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE