Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 108

Filed 05/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

04-cv-1067-REB-CBS

WILLIAM R. CADORNA, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant.

STIPULATED MOTION FOR TWO-DAY EXTENSION OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS, VERDICT FORMS, STATEMENTS OF CLAIMS, AND JURY INSTRUCTION BRIEFS

Pa t Wia R C d ra( lni ) lni l m . a on " a t "and Defendant City and County of if l f i P if f D n e ( ee d n"hereby jointly move by stipulation for extension of the deadline for e v r" fn a t D ) filing of their proposed jury instructions, verdict forms, statements of claims or defenses to the jury, and briefs concerning proposed jury instructions from Monday, May 22, 2006 to and including Wednesday, May 24, 2006. As grounds for this Stipulated Motion, the Parties state: 1. N ti s n i teMa irt J d e e c ln efr i telengthy owt t d g h ha n g t e u g ' xee t f t n h sa s l os

May 11, 2006 Settlement Conference, and extensive communications between and among the parties since then to exhaust the possibility of settlement, the seven-day trial of this action will proceed on Monday, June 19, 2006.

1

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 108

Filed 05/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

2.

Because the 30th day prior to June 19 is Saturday, May 20, 2006, the

parties must, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), file their proposed jury instructions, verdict forms, statements of claims or defenses, and jur i t co bi s no b fr " ee do te yn r t n r f o r eoe t n fh su i e h n x d y h hin taS tra ] Mo d y Ma 2 , 0 6 e t a w i s o [ aud y : n a , y 2 2 0 . c " 3. The complexity of the claims in this action is unusual for an employment

case. They involve review of b t Pa t 'it l r n t nand the subsequent oh lnisn i t mi i if i e f a ao refusal of the Denver Civil Service Commission to reinstate him or grant him back pay or other relief beyond the date of his age and service retirement: March 13, 2003. 4. Pa t 'c i u d r 2USC § 9 3aen t ad n lnis lms n e 4 ... 1 8 r o g re -variety procedural if a f

or free-speech retaliation claims for which standard, generally-accepted jury instructions are widely available. Just formulating §1983 instructions that clearly and properly differentiate between the substantive and procedural due process claims asserted with respect to the initial termination and the subsequent Commission decision without confusing the jury poses a considerable challenge. 5. Because most or all of the time they have had available to devote to this

case in the last several months has necessarily been dedicated to completion of discovery and briefing cross-motions for summary judgment, counsel for the parties have not until now had substantial time to devote to refinement and negotiation of jury instructions. Though the differences between their clients could not be greater, counsel have generally worked well together when cooperation has been necessary, and believe that the short extension of two days will greatly enhance their ability to narrow their differences concerning proposed instructions.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 108

Filed 05/17/2006

Page 3 of 4

6.

In compliance with D.C. COLO.LCivR. 7.1(A), the undersigned certify that

they consulted with one another concerning the subject of this motion, and agree that it is in the best interests of the parties that the requested extensions be granted. They further certify that this motion for extension complies with REB Civ. Practice Standard II.G.2, as it has been filed three business days prior to the due date. WHEREFORE, good cause having been shown, Plaintiff and Defendant respectfully request that this honorable Court grant extension of the deadline for the filing of proposed jury instructions, proposed verdict forms, statements of claims to the jury, and jury instruction briefs, from Monday, May 22, 2006 to and including Wednesday, May 24, 2006. DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006. Respectfully submitted,

/S/

Mark E. Brennan

Mark E. Brennan, P.C. P.O. Box 2556 Centennial, CO. 80161-2556 (303) 552-9394 (office) (303) 797-7687 (cell) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

/S/ Jack Wesoky Jack Wesoky, Asst. City Atty. 201 W. Colfax, Dept. 1108 Denver, CO. 80202 (720) 913-3117 [email protected] Attorney for Defendant

3

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 108

Filed 05/17/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 6.1(D), the undersigned hereby certify that, on this 17th day of May, 2006, they served a copy of the foregoing Stipulated Motion on the following person(s), who are their clients or client representatives, via electronic mail or interoffice mail: Mr. William R. Cadorna 5503 S. Moore Street Littleton, CO. 80127 Manager Al LaCabe, Jr. Manager of Public Safety Chief Larry Trujillo Denver Fire Dept.

/S/

Mark E. Brennan

/S/

Jack M. Wesoky

4