Free Order on Motion to Clarify - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01099-JLK-DW

Document 312

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane Case No. 04-cv-1099-JLK-DLW WOLF CREEK SKI CORPORATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. LEAVELL-McCOMBS JOINT VENTURE, d/b/a VILLAGE AT WOLF CREEK, Defendant.

ORDER Kane, J. This matter is before me on Defendant's Motion/Request for Clarification of Minute Order Dated March 17, 2008 (Doc. 305), filed April 7, 2008. To clarify the Minute Order in question, it was and is my intent that all parties have the benefit of the extension of time requested by Defendant and granted in the Minute Order. Accordingly, both parties were and are granted until April 5 (April 7 as a result of this date falling on a Saturday) to file a response to any Motions in Limine, Objections to Deposition Designations and Objections to Exhibits filed by the other party, and until April 16, 2008 to file a reply to these filings. The Minute Order was not ambiguous in this regard. Defendant also apparently seeks clarification on whether it is obligated to file responses and replies to motions in limine, objections to exhibits and deposition designations under the Minute Order, or whether it may reserve argument until the

Case 1:04-cv-01099-JLK-DW

Document 312

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 2 of 2

May 8, 2008 hearing on these matters. The Minute Order does not require the parties to file responses and replies to any of the cited matters. The intent in allowing for the exchange of briefing before the hearing is to provide a process through which the parties and the Court can identify and focus on the issues and objections raised in these filings that are truly disputed and should be addressed at the May 8, 2008 hearing. If the parties do not choose to engage in this briefing, they must nevertheless continue to confer in good faith to determine whether they can stipulate to resolution of any of the matters raised in their motions and objections. I will not waste the time of counsel or this Court addressing matters at the hearing that can and should have been resolved by the parties beforehand. If Defendant wishes to file its Combined Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Trial Exhibits and Designation of Deposition Testimony, attached as Exhibit B to its Motion/Request for Clarification, it may do so no later than April 9, 2008. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 8th day of April, 2008. s/ John L. Kane John L. Kane, Senior District Judge United States District Court

2