Free Brief in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW

Document 153-2

Filed 09/26/2005

Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW

Document 153-2

Filed 09/26/2005

UNITED STATES3 Page 2 of DISTRtCT COURT DENVER, COLORAnO

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 03-F-I 973 (MJW) J.E.H. KNUTSON, Plaintiff,
V.

~REGORyC. LANG HAM

AP~122005

THE WALKER GROUP, INC., Defendant. THE WALKER GROUP, INC., Plaintiff,
V.

FIRST LAYER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and J.E.H. KNUTSON, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant Walker Group, Inc.'s Motion to Strike (docket no. 109) is GRANTED. Plaintiff, J.E.H. Knutson's Third and Fourth Supplemental Disclosure Statements and accompanying documents are stricken. These supplemental disclosures are untimely and Plaintiff has not provided a valid explanation why these documents were not produced anytime between May 2004, and January 31, 2005. It is clear that Plaintiff would have had to provide the subject documents to its experts by December 2004, at the latest, and yet Plaintiff did not provide the same to the Defendant during such time frame. Moreover, Plaintiff has caused numerous delays in this case. Plaintiff has filed eight (8) prior motions for extensions of time. In addition, Plaintiff has sought and was granted, by this court, a stay of discovery from April 30 to May 26, 2004. Moreover, Plaintiff has filed two (2) motions to extend the expert disclosure deadlines as well as two (2) motions for extensions of time to respond to discovery. Lastly, discovery has been completed and the final pretrial conference is set for April 28, 2005. This case was filed in 2003, and both sides have had an adequate opportunity to complete discovery. To allow discovery to be re-opened at this late date would be prejudicial to the Defendant. It

Case 1:03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW

Document 153-2

Filed 09/26/2005

Page 3 of 3

would, in essence, gut the effectiveness of the scheduling order that this court had entered at the outset of this case. ~ Royalty Petroleum Co. v. Arkia, Inc., 129 F.R.D. 674, 783 (W.D. OkIa. 1990). It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to the Motion for Default Judgment and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (docket no. 121) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff shall have up to and including March 28, 2005, to respond. Date: April 12, 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on

~Q

,200S

,

a copy of the foregoing

document was served to the following persons by: X United States mail, proper postage affixed: Joshua Maximon Stuart D. Mann 12202 Airport Way Suite 170 Broomfield CO 80021 Richard S. Gottlieb Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 1001 West Forth Street Winston Salem NC 27101-2400 Cohn A. Walker Michael R. McCurdy Fairfield & Woods PC 1700 Lincoln Street #2400 Denver CO 80203-4524 Deputy CIer~

2