Montoya v. Newman

Full title: RAYMOND MONTOYA, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE NEWMAN, in his official capacity as…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Mar 16, 2015

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02362-REB-KLM (D. Colo. Mar. 16, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02362-REB-KLM

03-16-2015

RAYMOND MONTOYA, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE NEWMAN, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Huerfano County Jail, LARRY GARBISO, DOE #1, 2 - detention center officer at Huerfano County Jail, DOE #1-2, medical staff member at Huerfano County Jail, and CHARLES NEECE, M.D., Defendants.

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Blackburn, J.

This matter is before me on the County Defendants' Motion To Vacate and Re-Set Trial Date [#122]¹ filed February 19, 2015. The plaintiff filed a response [#126] and the county defendants filed a reply [#130]. I grant the motion.

1 "[#28]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

This case is set for trial beginning April 6, 2015. Still pending is resolution of a motion filed by the plaintiff for sanctions against the defendants for spoliation of evidence. Resolution of that motion has required significant briefing, hearing time, and the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Meanwhile, the plaintiff has sought and has received an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment [#79] of the county defendants until after the spoliation sanctions issue is resolved. Even if the spoliation issues were resolved tomorrow, it would be difficult for the parties to complete briefing on the summary judgment motion and for the court to issue a thorough ruling prior to trial. In addition, I note that the trial of the above-captioned case conflicts with the trial setting of a criminal case on the court's calendar, which criminal case has priority on the calendar and almost certainly will proceed to trial.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has outlined four primary factors that should be considered to determine if a continuance is necessary. See , e.g ., Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co .,175 F.3d 1221, 1230 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing U.S. v. West , 828 F.2d 1468, 1469 (10th Cir. 1987) (listing factors)). The key relevant factors are

(1) the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; (2) the likelihood that the continuance, if granted, would accomplish the purpose underlying the party's expressed need for the continuance; (3) the inconvenience to the opposing party, its witnesses, and the court resulting from the continuance; [and] (4) the need asserted for the continuance and the harm that [movant] might suffer as result of the district court's denial of the continuance.

United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462, 1475 (10^th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. West , 828 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10^th Cir. 1987)). Given the circumstances described above, these factors augur toward a continuance of the trial.

The court notes the expressed concern of the plaintiff that this case has been pending since September 5, 2012. I share this concern. Thus, I order that trial of this shall be re-set to begin no later than August 24, 2015.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the the County Defendants' Motion To Vacate and Re-Set Trial Date [#122] filed February 19, 2015, is GRANTED;

2. That the combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference set for March 20, 2015, and the trial set to commence April 6, 2015, are VACATED and CONTINUED pending further order;

3. That counsel SHALL CONTACT the court's administrative assistant at (303) 335-2350 on March 18, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. (MDT), to reschedule the combined Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference and the trial;

4. That the trial SHALL BE SET for ten trial days, Monday through Thursday, to begin no later than August 24, 2015;

5. That the current deadlines for submission of pretrial disclosures, objections to pretrial disclosures, a proposed final pretrial order, witness and exhibit lists, proposed jury instructions, and trial briefs are STAYED;

6. That the Fourth Trial Preparation Conference Order [#115] entered July 8, 2014, is AMENDED and SUPPLEMENTED accordingly; and

7. That when trial is re-set, a new Trial Preparation Conference Order SHALL BE ISSUED and SHALL ESTABLISH new deadlines for pretrial submissions.

Dated March 16, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

Robert E. Blackburn

United States District Judge