Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00860-WDM-PAC

Document 243

Filed 07/29/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-00860-WDM-PAC ROBERT ALWARD, Plaintiff(s), v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., et al., Defendant(s). ____________________________________________________________________ ORDER __________________________________________________________________ Patricia A. Coan, Magistrate Judge IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Show Cause s re: Sanctions and Motion to Vacate Hearing set for July 28, 2005 [filed July 27, 2005, and referred July 28, 2005] is granted in part, due to plaintiff' counsel' " s s computer crash." Accordingly, the response to the Order to Show Cause why the $100 sanction imposed should not remain is due no later than August 5, 2005. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff' request to extend time to respond to the Order to Show s Cause, which was heard yesterday, is denied as mooted by my previous order granting an extension of time, by the response plaintiff' counsel previously filed, and by my order s yesterday allowing plaintiff' counsel to file a supplemental ten page brief. It is further s ORDEREDthat plaintiff' request to vacate the hearing held July 28, 2005 is denied s

Case 1:04-cv-00860-WDM-PAC

Document 243

Filed 07/29/2005

Page 2 of 2

04-WM-860 July 29, 2005

as moot. It is further ORDERED, finally, that plaintiff' counsel' request for a delay of 45 days to allow s s her to obtain counsel and expert testimony on the sanctions issue is denied. Plaintiff has been aware of my April 28, 2005 Order requiring her to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for approximately ninety days; plaintiff' counsel further has been s aware, for approximately sixty days, that defendants are seeking attorney fees and costs of over $30,000. Plaintiff' counsel has moved repeatedly for extensions of time with s respect to briefing those issues, and repeatedly moved for extensions of time throughout the discovery phase of this case, but delayed in raising the issue of representation of counsel until July 27, 2005, the day before the hearing on sanctions and attorney fees. Plaintiff' lack of diligence fails to meet Rule 16(b)' requirement of good cause. It is s s further ORDERED that any other relief requested is denied. Dated this 29th day of July, 2005.

By the Court: s/Patricia A. Coan Patricia A. Coan Magistrate Judge

2