Free Motion to Reset - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02528-WDM-OES

Document 80

Filed 08/22/2005

Page 1 of 5

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 03-cv-02528-WDM-OES DANNY O. DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant.

__________________________________________________________________ MOTION FOR STATUS/SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND TO RESET DISCOVERY DEADLINES __________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Danny O. Daniels, by and through his attorneys, John D. Phillips and Marci A. Gilligan, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 26(d) respectfully requests the Court set a status conference in this case to discuss the status of the case and the re-setting of discovery deadlines. As grounds therefore, Mr. Daniels states as follows: 1. Doc. 3. 2. Following Defendant's Answer on March 23, 2004, Plaintiff filed and timely served Rule 26 Disclosures on April 25. See Doc. 14. These were accompanied by approximately 50 pages of documents Plaintiff intended to use to support his claims. See Doc. 72; Ex. A, ¶4. On December 11, 2003, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint pro se.

Case 1:03-cv-02528-WDM-OES

Document 80

Filed 08/22/2005

Page 2 of 5

3. On April 21, 2004, Defendant served Plaintiff with a number of discovery requests, including requests to produce, interrogatories and requests for admission. See Doc. 72; Ex. B. Plaintiff responded to the discovery requests on May 24, 2004. Id. at Exs. A, 1, 2 and 3. 4. On May 12, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court requesting that counsel be appointed to assist him on this case. Doc. 29. On May 14, 2004, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's request for counsel, but directed the clerk to place Plaintiff's name on the list of plaintiffs who are awaiting the services of a volunteer attorney. Doc. 36. While Plaintiff spoke with a number of attorneys after his name was posted, he was unable to obtain counsel to represent him. See Doc. 72; Ex. A,¶6. 5. In May 2004 and again on June 4, 2004, Plaintiff was deposed by Defendant. See Doc. 72; Ex. A, ¶7. 6. Beginning on July 14, 2004, Plaintiff was incarcerated on a number of serious felony charges. Id. Also during this time, Plaintiff's wife and children moved their residence, with the assistance of Arapahoe County Victim's Assistance, due to threats made against Plaintiff's family. Id. at ¶ 11. 7. According to the Scheduling Order in this case, requests for production were due by July 30, 2004 and the discovery deadline expired on October 29, 2004. Doc. 22. Plaintiff, however, remained incarcerated from July 14, 2004 until October 29, 2004.

Case 1:03-cv-02528-WDM-OES

Document 80

Filed 08/22/2005

Page 3 of 5

8. In addition, while Mr. Daniels was incarcerated on October 18, 2004, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's case alleging that Plaintiff failed to prosecute his case and failed to follow a court order. Doc. 51.1 9. Nonetheless, immediately upon his release from jail on October 29, 2004, Mr. Daniels served the City with requests for production. The City responded to this discovery request on August 12, 2005, by requesting that Mr. Daniels withdraw the requests or it will file for a protective order. Counsel for the parties has since agreed to bring this matter before the Court at the requested status conference. 10. As is demonstrated above, Mr. Daniels has attempted to comply with the City's discovery requests and in fact submitted to two days of depositions. However, he has not had the benefit of conducting meaningful discovery in this case. 11. Mr. Daniels does not believe that he will require an undue extension of the discovery deadlines to conduct such discovery, as his counsel has already prepared interrogatories and requests for production which are ready to be served on the City. Further, he does not believe he will need to conduct more than five depositions. 12. Rule 7.1 Certification:

On December 14, 2004, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation for Dismissal of Plaintiff's case. Doc. 63. On July 22, 2005, the Court rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Doc. 78.

1

Case 1:03-cv-02528-WDM-OES

Document 80

Filed 08/22/2005

Page 4 of 5

Undersigned counsel has communicated with Assistant City Attorney Karla J. Pierce about this motion. In light of Judge Miller's July 22 Order rejecting dismissal of this case, both parties agree that a status conference is necessary. Mr. Daniels would also request that new discovery deadlines be set at the time of that conference. The City, through Ms. Pierce, has indicated it objects to resetting discovery deadlines. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of August, 2005.

s/Marci A. Gilligan___________ Marci A. Gilligan Richilano & Ridley, P.C. 1800 15th Street, Ste. 101 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 893-8000 Facsimile: (303) 893-8055 E-Mail: [email protected] John D. Phillips Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC 1050 Seventeenth St., Ste. 2300 Denver, CO 80265 Phone: (303) 572-9300 Facsimile: (303) 572-7883 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:03-cv-02528-WDM-OES

Document 80

Filed 08/22/2005

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of August, 2005, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid and address to the following: Karla J. Pierce, Esq. City Attorney's Office 201 W. Colfax Ave. #1108 Denver, CO 80202

s/Gwenn E. Miller____________ Gwenn E. Miller