Free Order on Motion for Order - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02633-PSF-PAC

Document 195

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Phillip S. Figa Civil Action No. 03-cv-02633-PSF-PAC (Consolidated with 04-cv-00319-PSF-PAC) LILLIAN BARTON, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, OFFICER R. BLEA, Badge No. 99006, OFFICER N. SAGEN, Badge No.96-021, OFFICER JOHN DOE, MAYOR JOHN HICKENLOOPER,in his Official capacity, WELLINGTON WEBB, as former Mayor, in his Official capacity only, GERALD R. WHITMAN, in his Official capacity as Chief of Police, City and County of Denver, J. WALLACE WORTHAM, JR., former Denver City Attorney, in his Official capacity, and CHRIS RAMSEY, former Denver Deputy City Attorney, in his Official capacity only, Defendants. Civil Action No. 04-cv-00319-PSF-PAC (Consolidated with 03-cv-02633-PSF-PAC) CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; RICHARD BLEA; NICK SAGAN; JOSH VASCONCELLOS; MAYOR JOHN HICKENLOOPER; WELLINGTON WEBB; GERALD R. WHITMAN; RUDY SANDOVAL; J. WALLACE WORTHAM, JR; and CHRIS RAMSEY, Defendants.

Case 1:03-cv-02633-PSF-PAC

Document 195

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 2 of 4

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM S MAGISTRATE JUDGE COAN' ORDER NO. 3 DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 S

THIS MATTER is before the Court on this pro se plaintiff' filing of October 12, s 2005, partially described above (Dkt. # 186), in which she requests this Court to review under F.R.Civ.P. 72(a) the order entered orally by Magistrate Judge Coan on September 20, 2005, and in writing on September 22, 2005, referred to by plaintiff as Order No. 3, denying plaintiff' motion to compel discovery (Dkt. # 132) filed July 15, s 2005, and plaintiff' motion to amend plaintiff' motion to compel (Dkt. # 155) filed s s August 25, 2005. Plaintiff' original motions requested an order compelling defendants to answer s three separate sets of Requests for Admissions served by plaintiff upon defendants Ramsey (Attachment 1 to motion of July 15, 2005, served on Ramsey on June 8, 2005), Whitman (Attachment 5 to motion of July 15, 2005 served on Whitman on June 29, 2005) and Wortham (Attachment 6 to motion of July 15, 2005 served on Wortham on June 29, 2005). Each of the sets of requests contained 25 paragraphs of request for admission. Defendants declined to answer the requests because the scheduling order entered on March 2, 2004 (Dkt. # 29) allowed 25 requests for admissions to be served, plaintiff had already served 25 requests for admission on Defendant Blea, and with the total number of requests served on these three defendants plaintiff had exceeded the limit of 25 set forth in the scheduling order. See Attachment 7 to plaintiff' motion. s

2

Case 1:03-cv-02633-PSF-PAC

Document 195

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 3 of 4

Defendant Ramsey also apparently objected because the set served on him was not served sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline to permit a response within the deadline. See Attachment 2 to plaintiff' motion. s The Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff' motion to compel, stating that the s scheduling order contained a limitation of 25 requests for admission, agreed to by plaintiff through her attorney, and that plaintiff has exceeded the limit by propounding 100 requests for admission without seeking leave of court to do so (Minutes of 9/20/05 hearing (Dkt. # 177) at 2; Order, September 22, 2005 at ¶ 3, Dkt. # 179). The Court has reviewed the scheduling order entered on March 3, 2004, and the interlineated notations clearly indicate that each side was limited to 25 requests for production of documents and/or 25 requests for admissions. (Dkt. # 29 at 7.) Plaintiff now objects to the order of the Magistrate Judge, contending that her attorney was not authorized to limit discovery in this manner. However, at the time of the scheduling conference plaintiff was represented by counsel, and counsel was authorized to agree to discovery limitations. Moreover, the limitations were imposed by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff also asserts that the discovery limitations were not reasonable. Plaintiff could have sought leave to ask submit additional requests, but apparently did not do so.

3

Case 1:03-cv-02633-PSF-PAC

Document 195

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 4 of 4

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff' Objection (Dkt. # 186) to Order No. 3 s contained in the September 22, 2005 Order of the Magistrate Judge is OVERRULED. DATED: October 17, 2005 BY THE COURT: s/ Phillip S. Figa ________________________________ Phillip S. Figa United States District Judge

4