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

Case 1:04-cv-00701-LTB-MJW

Document 73

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J. WATANABE Civil Action No. 04-CV-00701-LTB-MJW NICOLAS MEDRANO, Plaintiff(s), v. KARL SCHERCK, Defendant(s). MINUTE ORDER (DOCKET NUMBER 59) _____________________________________________________________________

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff' Motion for Continuance Pursuant to s F.R.C.P. [sic] 56(f) (docket no. 59) is DENIED. The Complaint was filed in state court on December 8, 2003. Defendant removed this case to federal court on April 8, 2004. On August 12, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendant' motion to s dismiss (docket no. 31) and ruled that Defendant was excused from giving a deposition (docket no. 42). On October 14, 2005, the parties attended a status conference with the court and the court set a new discovery cutoff date of January 30, 2006 and a dispositive motion deadline of February 28, 2006 (docket no. 47). Plaintiff has had over two (2) years to conduct discovery and he has not scheduled a single deposition or conducted any other discovery. The deadline to complete discovery has passed and now Plaintiff seeks discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) . Here, the court finds that Plaintiff' use of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to now request discovery in order to oppose a s

Case 1:04-cv-00701-LTB-MJW

Document 73

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 2 of 2

motion for summary judgment is misplaced. Rule 56(f) was not intended to be used after discovery is complete and after both sides have had an opportunity to conduct discovery. In this case, Plaintiff has had an opportunity to conduct discovery as outlined above but did not do so within the time frames set by the court. Accordingly, good cause has not been shown to allow discovery at this stage of the proceedings. Velez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375, F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir. 2004). Date: May 5, 2006