Free Scheduling Conference - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02422-WDM-OES

Document 99

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO MAGISTRATE JUDGE O. EDWARD SCHLATTER Civil Action No. 03-cv-02422-WDM-OES Courtroom Deputy: Cathy Coomes LUTHER EARL MADRY, JR.; Plaintiff(s), v. LISA PICKERING; GILBERT J. LADRINI, JR.; JEFFERY MAIZE; and DANIEL ANDERSON; Defendant(s). Gillian Flener Date: August 24, 2005 FTR ­ Courtroom A601 Pro Se

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER PRELIMINARY SCHEDULING/STATUS CONFERENCE Court in session: [X] 9:22 a.m.

Discovery Procedure Memorandum to counsel follows Minutes.

THE FOLLOWING WILL CONFIRM THE ACTIONS TAKEN AND DATES SET AT THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE HELD THIS DATE: The Court reviews the Scheduling Order submitted by Plaintiff on August 23, 2005, with Plaintiff and Ms. Flener. Disputes are discussed. ORDERED: Plaintiff shall reduce his submitted Scheduling Order as stated on the record and provide the changes, in writing, to Ms. Flener no later than September 1, 2005. Ms. Flener is directed to prepare and submit the joint proposed Scheduling Order to the Court for signature. If problems arise in preparing and submitting the Scheduling Order, Ms. Flener is granted leave to contact the Court, and a hearing will be set to resolve the issues. Discussion regarding depositions to be conducted.

Case 1:03-cv-02422-WDM-OES

Document 99

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff is directed to answer all questions asked by Ms. Flener during deposition. Plaintiff is warned that failing to answer questions during deposition could result in his case being dismissed. Joinder of Parties/Amendment of Pleadings Deadline: Discovery Cut off: Dispositive Motion Deadline: 26(a)(1) Disclosures Deadline: September 1, 2005 February 17, 2006 April 3, 2006 September 15, 2005 (both sides) July 10, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. not set at this time.

Pretrial Conference: Settlement Conference:

ORDERED: Plaintiff shall provide the names and addresses of witnesses listed by September 15, 2005. If Plaintiff fails to do so, he will be barred from using the witness. Ms. Flener provides Plaintiff with her law firm' correct mailing address and requests that s Plaintiff provide her with a telephone number where he can be reached. The Court notes that on August 23, 2005, Plaintiff faxed to chambers a document entitled Plaintiff (sic) Response to Court to Show Cause why Current Residential Address and Employment has not been Disclosed. Plaintiff' current mailing s address, 13613 E. Nevada Place, Aurora, CO 80012, is contained in that document; and the Clerk is directed to update Plaintiff' current mailing address. The s document is accepted for filing this date. Court in recess: Total time in Court: 9:52 a.m. (Hearing concluded) 0:30

Case 1:03-cv-02422-WDM-OES

Document 99

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 3 of 3

PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE O. EDWARD SCHLATTER When discovery disputes arise, I prefer to address and resolve them over the telephone, if possible. I find that short telephone hearings are more efficient and more economical for everyone, including me. It is not only unnecessary to submit to a written motion, I prefer that no written motions be submitted. I will listen to the comments of both sides, and I will provide an immediate ruling. Attorneys who find themselves unable to resolve a problem without assistance should telephone my office and obtain a date and time for a telephone conference at (303) 844-4507. Speak to Shawn, my secretary. She can usually provide a telephone hearing very near in time to your call ­ sometimes on the spot. If problems arise during depositions, I suggest that attorneys at least try and reach me by telephone while the deposition is in process. I understand that it is important to resolve an objection or issue on the spot, rather than terminate the deposition, only to recommence on a later day. If I can shake free to address the problem, I will do so. Use of the telephone is an optional procedure, not a mandatory one. I recognize that some cases, or some disputes, do not lend themselves to resolution by means of a telephone conference. Lengthy or detailed written motions, such as motions to compel directed to a number of items, will generally be scheduled for a hearing in my courtroom.
For Pretrial Order and Judge Nottingham' Preliminary Pretrial Order formats, s see the Court' web site at: s www.cod.uscourts.gov.