Carbajal v. Watada

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03231-REB-KLM
VICTORIA CARBAJAL,
DEAN CARBAJAL, and
LUIS LEAL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MITCHELL R. MORISSEY, District Attorney for the Second Judicial District, in his official
and individual capacities,
JEFFREY WATTS, Investigator for the Second Judicial District, in his official and individual
capacities,
ROBERT FULLER, Investigator for the Second Judicial District, in his official and individual
capacities,
REBEKAH MELNICK, Deputy District Attorney for the Second Judicial District, in her official
and individual capacities,
LARA MULLIN, Deputy District Attorney for the Second Judicial District, in her official and
individual capacities,
MILES FLESCHE, District Administrator and Clerk for the Second Judicial District, in his
official and individual capacities,
KEITH CRISWELL, Deputy Court Clerk for the Second Judicial District, in his official and
individual capacities,
ANNE MANSFIELD, District Court Judge for the Second Judicial District, in her official and
individual capacities,
KEEFER, Deputy Sheriff for the Denver Detention Center, in his official and individual
capacities,
MICHAEL SIMPSON, Detective for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities,
JAY LOPEZ, Detective for the Denver Police Department, in his official and individual
capacities,
RICHARD HAGAN, Detective for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities,
CAROL DWYER, a co-conspirator with the Second Judicial District Attorney’s Office, in her
official and individual capacities,
WELLS FARGO, a corporation,
BRIAN BERARDINI, a co-conspirator with the Second Judicial District Attorney’s Office,
in his individual capacity, and
JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General for the State of Colorado, in his official and individual
capacities,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:12-cv-03231-PAB-KLM Document 9 filed 01/02/13 USDC Colorado pg
1 of 4

-2-
ORDER SETTING
SCHEDULING/PLANNING CONFERENCE
AND ADVISEMENT TO PRO SE PLAINTIFFS
(as amended effective December 1, 2011)
The above captioned case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix pursuant
to the Order of Reference entered by District Judge Robert E. Blackburn on January 2, 2013. The
plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, shall take particular notice of these instructions as any
failure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions and/or dismissal of their case.
A. Date of Scheduling Conference
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Scheduling/Planning Conference pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(b) shall be held on April 11, 2013, commencing at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom C-204, Second
Floor, Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado.
B. How to Request Different Date for Scheduling Conference
If this date is not convenient for any counsel or pro se party, he or she shall file a motion to
reschedule the conference to a more convenient date, and shall list dates in the motion which are
available for all counsel and pro se parties. Absent exceptional circumstances, no request for
rescheduling any appearance in this court will be considered unless a motion is made five (5)
business days in advance of the date of appearance.
C. How to Request Appearance By Telephone at Scheduling Conference
If you wish to appear at the Scheduling Conference by telephone, you must file a motion
seeking permission to appear by telephone and setting forth good cause for a telephonic
appearance. No motion for any telephonic appearance will be granted unless it is filed at least five
(5) business days in advance of the date of appearance.
D. Plaintiff’s Duty to Notify Parties of Scheduling Conference
Despite the fact that the plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, they shall notify all parties who
have not entered an appearance as of the date of this Order of the date and time of the
Scheduling/Planning Conference set forth above.
E. Parties’ Obligations Before Scheduling Conference
1. Scheduling Order
IT IS ORDERED that counsel and pro se parties in this case are to hold a pre-
scheduling conference meeting at least twenty-one (21) days before the scheduling conference
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1). 	Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1, the plaintiffs are
responsible for preparing a proposed Scheduling Order in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f),
Case No. 1:12-cv-03231-PAB-KLM Document 9 filed 01/02/13 USDC Colorado pg
2 of 4

-3-
as amended. The instructions for completing the Scheduling Order may be found on the Court’s
website (www.cod.uscourts.gov) with the scheduling order forms. Please be aware that effective
December 1, 2011, there are TWO forms of Scheduling Order available on the Court’s
website under the “Local Rules” tab: one form for non-administrative review cases and one
form for ERISA cases. PLEASE USE THE CURRENT and CORRECT FORM FOR YOUR CASE.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), as amended, no discovery is to be exchanged until after
the Rule 26(f) conference meeting. The parties shall include the following language in Section 8,
Paragraph (d) of their proposed Scheduling Order in non-administrative review cases:
“Other Planning or Discovery Orders: No opposed discovery motions are to be filed with
the Court until the parties comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1A. If the parties are unable to
reach agreement on a discovery issue after conferring, they shall arrange a telephone
hearing with Magistrate Judge Mix regarding the issue. 	Both of these steps must be
completed before any contested discovery motions are filed with the Court.”
No later than five (5) calendar days prior to the Scheduling/Planning Conference, counsel
and pro se parties shall submit their proposed Scheduling Order in compliance with the Court’s
Electronic Case Filing Procedures which are also available on the Court’s website. An additional
copy 	of 	the 	proposed 	scheduling 	order 	is 	to 	be 	provided 	to 	my 	chambers 	at
Mix_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov by e-mail attachment with the subject line stating “proposed
Scheduling Order.”
Parties who are pro se or do not have access to the internet may obtain the scheduling
order form and instructions from the Clerk’s Office, Room A105, in the Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado, 80294. Scheduling Orders prepared by parties
not represented by counsel, or without access to electronic case filing, are to be submitted to the
Clerk of the Court on paper.
2. Mandatory Disclosures
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 14 days after the Rule 26(f) pre-scheduling
conference meeting, the parties shall comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1), as amended.
F. Miscellaneous
All 	out-of-state 	counsel 	shall 	comply 	with 	D.C.COLO.LCivR 	83.3 	before 	the
Scheduling/Planning Conference.
It is the responsibility of all counsel and pro se parties to notify the Court of his or her entry
of appearance, withdrawal of appearance, substitution of counsel, or change of address, e-mail
address, or telephone number by complying with the Court’s Electronic Case Filing Procedures or
paper-filing the appropriate document with the Court.
The Parties are further advised that they shall not assume that the Court will grant the relief
requested in any motion. Failure to appear at a court-ordered conference or to comply with
a court-ordered deadline which has not been vacated by court order, including deadline to
prepare and submit a proposed scheduling order, may result in the imposition of sanctions
Case No. 1:12-cv-03231-PAB-KLM Document 9 filed 01/02/13 USDC Colorado pg
3 of 4

-4-
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), including the payment of the opposing parties’ expenses in
attending the scheduling conference, and/or dismissal of the case.
Anyone seeking entry to the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse will be required to
show valid photo identification. 	See D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B. 	Failure to comply with this
requirement will result in denial of entry to the courthouse.
DATED: January 2, 2013 at Denver, Colorado.
Case No. 1:12-cv-03231-PAB-KLM Document 9 filed 01/02/13 USDC Colorado pg
4 of 4