UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
UNIFORM CIVIL PRACTICE STANDARDS OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES
Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse
Courtroom: A402
Chambers: A432
Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse
Courtroom: A401
Chambers: A442
Magistrate Judge James M. Candelaria
U.S. District Court / La Plata County Courthouse
Suite 150
Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell
Colorado Springs Courthouse
Courtroom: Suite 101
Chambers: Suite 100
Magistrate Judge Susan Prose
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse
Courtroom: A502
Chambers: A532
Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella
Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse
Courtroom: C204
Chambers: C253
Effective: January 15 2025
Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley
Wayne Aspinall Federal Building – Grand Junction
Courtroom: 323
Chambers: 315
Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O’Hara
Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse
Courtroom: C402
Chambers: C452
Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung
Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse
Courtroom: C205
Chambers: C254
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4
1. THE COURT’S MISSION ........................................................................................................ 4
2. THE ROLE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGES..................................................................................... 4
3. PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, AND APPLICATION OF THESE PRACTICE STANDARDS ...................... 5
4. ATTORNEY MENTORING AND TRAINING .............................................................................. 5
II. COMMUNICATION WITH CHAMBERS.................................................................... 6
III. COURT APPEARANCE .................................................................................................. 7
1. LOCATION ............................................................................................................................ 7
2. DECORUM ............................................................................................................................ 7
3. REMOTE APPEARANCES ....................................................................................................... 8
IV. SCHEDULING CONFERENCES................................................................................... 8
V. MOTIONS PRACTICE ................................................................................................. 10
1. DUTY TO MEET AND CONFER ............................................................................................ 10
2. FORMATTING AND PAGE LIMITS ........................................................................................ 10
3. ORAL ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................. 11
4. MOTIONS TO RESTRICT ...................................................................................................... 11
5. MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS GOVERNING THE EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION DURING LITIGATION ................................................................................... 11
6. MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY ..................................................................... 12
7. MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MODIFICATION ................................................... 12
8. MOTIONS TO STAY DISCOVERY ......................................................................................... 12
9. MOTIONS TO DISMISS ........................................................................................................ 13
10. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT................................................................................. 13
VI. DISCOVERY DISPUTES .............................................................................................. 17
1. GENERAL INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 17
2. DUTY TO MEET AND CONFER BEFORE FILING ................................................................... 17
3. CONTACTING CHAMBERS WITH DISCOVERY DISPUTES ...................................................... 18
4. COURT INSTRUCTIONS/RESOLUTION .................................................................................. 18
VII. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES ................................................................................ 23
1. IN GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 23
2. PARTY ATTENDANCE ......................................................................................................... 25
3. FULL AUTHORITY .............................................................................................................. 25
4. SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS ................................................................................................ 26
5. PRE-SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE CALL .............................................................................. 26
6. ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS ................................................. 26
VIII. TRIAL .............................................................................................................................. 28
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 29
3
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(b), the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado’s Magistrate Judges issue these Uniform Civil Practice Standards (“D.C.COLO.MJ”) for
the purpose of increasing accessibility. The following document contains the base instructions for
appearing before each Magistrate Judge in our District. In some instances, individualized
preferences are noted in the form of a table with additional or substituted instructions for each
particular Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judges endeavor to update these Practice Standards
as appropriate either upon an annual review or the appointment of a new Magistrate Judge.
Because of the District’s caseload, it has been common for the District to have visiting
Magistrate Judges from other Districts. For brevity and to avoid confusion, these visiting
Magistrate Judges’ practice standards are excluded from these Practice Standards. Parties
appearing in federal court, including attorneys and pro se litigants, with cases before a visiting
Magistrate Judge shall familiarize themselves with that Judge’s practice standards.
1. The Court’s Mission
The mission of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is “to serve the
public by providing a fair and impartial forum that ensures equal access to justice in accordance
with the rule of law, protects rights and liberties of all persons, and resolves cases in a timely and
efficient manner.” Litigation is an emotional, stressful, time-consuming, and expensive process.
The Court’s mission is best served when litigants treat each other with civility. The notion that
litigation is necessarily an “adversarial” process is misguided. It is possible for counsel and parties
to disagree and zealously advocate their positions, while at the same time treating each other with
courtesy and respect. Zealous advocacy “does not, under any circumstances, justify conduct that
is unprofessional, discourteous, or uncivil toward any person involved in the legal system.” Colo.
RPC Preamble ¶¶ 5, 9; see also D.C.COLO.LAttyR 2(a). The Court expects nothing less than
professionalism and respect toward each other and the Court.
2. The Role of Magistrate Judges
Magistrate Judges are judicial officers of the District Court appointed by the District Judges
of the Court to handle a variety of judicial proceedings. They serve renewable eight-year terms.
Colorado is a unique district in that it has two part-time Magistrate Judges (Durango and Grand
Junction). Six full-time Magistrate Judge positions are allotted to Denver and one to Colorado
Springs. Effective 2024, the Court has designated a Chief Magistrate Judge based on seniority to
serve a four-year term.
In criminal cases, federal Magistrate Judges have the authority to issue warrants, and
conduct preliminary proceedings, such as detention hearings. Magistrate Judges can preside over
petty offense trials and misdemeanors with the consent of the defendants.
As a general rule, Magistrate Judges may preside over all aspects of a civil case with the
consent of all parties (by filing the appropriate consent form). If not all parties consent, then a
District Judge must preside over the litigation and the Magistrate Judge may continue on the case
4
to hear matters the District Judge refers (e.g., convening scheduling and status conferences,
determining pretrial matters such as discovery, issuing orders on non-dispositive motions, and
providing recommendations on dispositive motions). Note, the District Judge must refer a specific
filing to the Magistrate Judge in order for the Magistrate Judge to be able to rule on it. Pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.3(b), parties may also consent to the assigned Magistrate Judge making the
final determination of a dispositive motion (by filing the appropriate consent form).
By statute passed in 1990, the formal title for the position is “United States Magistrate
Judge.” Magistrate Judges should be referred to as “Magistrate Judge,” “Judge,” or “Your Honor.”
Similarly, the Chief Magistrate Judge should be referred to as “Chief Magistrate Judge,” “Judge,”
or “Your Honor.” Neither in written submissions nor in person should any Magistrate Judge be
referred to as a “magistrate.”
3. Purpose, Authority, and Application of These Practice Standards
Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, these Practice Standards are intended to facilitate the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every civil action. These Practice Standards may
be modified or supplemented by orders entered in specific cases.
Parties appearing in federal court, including attorneys and pro se litigants, must know and
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Electronic
Case Filing Procedures, and the Local Rules of Practice (collectively, “Rules”). These Practice
Standards should be applied in conjunction with those Rules, but in the event of a direct conflict,
the Rules control.
Where a District Judge is the presiding judicial officer and there is a conflict between the
two sets of standards, the District Judge’s practice standards will apply with the exception of
discovery motions, motions to restrict, and motions for a protective order.
4. Attorney Mentoring and Training
The Preamble to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct acknowledges that lawyers
should “seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice, and
the quality of service rendered by the legal profession.” These goals are best achieved when
experienced lawyers provide inexperienced lawyers with opportunities to participate in judicial
proceedings. The Court welcomes the participation of inexperienced attorneys for the purpose of
learning and training. The parties should advise the Court prior to any hearing (including in any
request for oral argument) if a less experienced lawyer will be arguing. Where appropriate, the
Court may permit more experienced counsel of record to assist the less experienced attorney who
is arguing. The Court encourages seasoned lawyers to facilitate the mentoring and development of
these lawyers that will enrich the legal profession and the work of the United States District Court.
5
II. COMMUNICATION WITH CHAMBERS
Magistrate Judges’ Chambers consist of the Judge, their law clerks, and an assigned
courtroom deputy. When contacting Chambers directly, therefore, you are speaking with a
professional—and in the case of law clerks, you are speaking with a lawyer. Please conduct all
communications with the appropriate level of professionalism, and please instruct your staff to do
the same.
The Court may not engage in ex parte communications with counsel or parties, except
when the parties have consented for the purpose of discussing settlement. This means that
unilaterally contacting Chambers is generally inappropriate. Chambers, however, is available to
answer questions of an administrative or logistical nature. Depending on the Chambers, you may
contact law clerks either at the phone number or email listed in the table below. Please keep in
mind, however, that staff is not permitted to provide legal advice, interpret orders or rules, grant
oral requests, or provide specific information about the progress of any pending motion.
Please direct questions regarding courtroom technology to the courtroom deputy. The
courtroom deputy may also be contacted to obtain copies of the audio recordings.
All documents required to be submitted to Chambers pursuant to the Local Rules of
Practice, court orders, or these Practice Standards shall be submitted via email to the Chambers’
email specified in the table below. Please include the case number, case name, and document
description in the subject line of the email. For information about electronic filing, please
contact the Clerk’s Office at (303) 844-3433. Pro se parties may contact the Pro Se Clinic at (303)
824-5395 regarding how to apply for authorization to e-file or see the instructions currently
available through Electronic Case Filing (ECF) | US District Court of Colorado (uscourts.gov).
CHAMBERS CONTACT COURTROOM DEPUTY CONTACT
INFORMATION INFORMATION
Chief Magistrate Judge Varholak Sonia Chaplin (303) 335-2361
(303) 335-2365
[email protected]
[email protected]
Judge Neureiter Roman Villa
(303) 335-2403 (303) 335-2112
[email protected] [email protected]
Judge Candelaria Patricia Berg
(970) 259-0542 (970) 259-0542
[email protected] [email protected]
6
Judge Dominguez Braswell Elizabeth Lopez Vaughan
(719) 575-0328
[email protected]
[email protected]
(email preferred)
Stefanie Jeffries (303) 335-2061 or (303) 335-
Judge Prose 2726 (courtroom)
(303) 335-2722
[email protected]
[email protected]
Judge Starnella Laura Galera
(303) 335-2770 (303) 335-2104
[email protected] [email protected]
Judge Gurley Terry Keith
(970) 241-8932 (970) 241-8932
[email protected] [email protected]
Judge O’Hara Jesse Torres
(303) 335-2740 (303) 335-2113
O’
[email protected] [email protected]
Judge Chung Stephanie Price
(303) 335-2761 (303) 335-2326
[email protected] [email protected]
III. COURT APPEARANCE
1. Location
Unless otherwise communicated, all proceedings are conducted in person in the courtroom.
Please be advised that anyone seeking entry into the courthouse will be required to show valid
photo identification.
2. Decorum
Court time is valuable for all involved. Please be on time! Be prepared for any conference,
hearing, or other setting. Unless directed otherwise, please observe traditional courtroom decorum
by rising to address the Court and requesting permission to approach the bench and any witness.
Even when appearing by teleconference or videoconference, you are appearing in Court and should
dress and conduct yourself accordingly.
7
In this District, all proceedings before a Magistrate Judge are audio-recorded by the
courtroom deputy. Accordingly, when speaking, please speak into a microphone, this is the only
method by which the proceeding is recorded. Audio recordings may be requested from the
courtroom deputy. For transcripts, please contact Patterson Transcription Company at (303) 755-
4536 or AB Litigation Services at (303) 629-8534.
3. Remote Appearances
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, certain Magistrate Judges have been conducting routine
conferences, such as scheduling conferences or status conferences, by telephone or
videoconference rather than in person. Be sure to check whether a conference or hearing is set as
in-person or remote (telephone/video). Litigants and counsel whose offices are located outside the
Denver metropolitan area or who cannot reasonably make a personal appearance at a court setting
may request to appear by telephone or videoconference. Requests to appear by telephone or
videoconference may be made by calling Chambers or by emailing Chambers and copying all
counsel of record five (5) business days in advance of the setting unless otherwise directed by the
Court. Requests must set forth good cause for remote appearance. When a request is granted, all
parties authorized to participate remotely must jointly contact the Court at the scheduled time of
the hearing. Please introduce yourself each time because it is not clear who is speaking and mute
your phone or videoconference when you are not speaking.
IV. SCHEDULING CONFERENCES
The Court may set a Scheduling Conference at its discretion or at the request of the parties.
In advance of the Scheduling Conference, the parties and any unrepresented non-incarcerated
parties shall hold a meeting in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). They will meaningfully
confer—face to face, by videoconference, or by telephone and not solely by written or email
correspondence—and attempt in “good faith” to jointly prepare a proposed scheduling order.
The format of the proposed scheduling order should follow the Court’s form “Proposed
Scheduling Order and Instructions,” which is available under “Forms and Instructions” on the
Court’s website. To the extent the parties want certain discovery protocols to apply (e.g.,
employment cases), they should include them in the proposed scheduling order. As provided in
the Court’s form and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3), the proposed scheduling order should
address Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) discovery, including preservation and
production. Given the prevalence of technology and increasing usage of electronic devices, social
media, and messaging applications, ESI discovery is needed in most cases. Because ESI discovery
has unique considerations, it is imperative for parties to confer early on about ESI issues, including
search terms, and the Court encourages parties to agree to an ESI protocol.
The parties should file the proposed scheduling order through ECF. Pro se parties who do
not have access to the ECF system may submit requests directly to the Clerk’s office; however, if
another party in the case has access to the ECF filing system, that party shall bear the responsibility
of filing the joint scheduling order.
8
If the Court, at its discretion, sets a Scheduling Conference, the parties should be prepared
to discuss the specific facts of the case and their particular needs. Some typical issues that are
covered during the Scheduling Conference may include: (1) the specific claims and legal principles
of the underlying claims and the witnesses and evidence that will be used to support those claims;
(2) the factual and legal bases for any affirmative defenses; (3) any special issues facing the parties;
(4) the basis for the schedule proposed; (5) the scope of anticipated ESI discovery; (6) the manner
by which ESI will be exchanged; (7) the need for a Protective Order and/or ESI protocol; and (8)
the status of any alternative dispute resolution attempts.
All attorneys who attend the Scheduling Conference shall ensure they have sufficient
knowledge to intelligently discuss the claims and defenses of the case. The table below identifies
each Magistrate Judge’s additional requirements or instructions to the extent they have any.
INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHEDULING
JUDGE
CONFERENCES
Varholak Judge Varholak will almost always set a Scheduling Conference but will
usually approve a stipulated scheduling order and will only have a
substantive discussion about the case if he has specific concerns with the
proposed scheduling order.
Neureiter Judge Neureiter will always set a Scheduling Conference and will almost
always have a substantive discussion about the claims and defenses and
the need for the requested discovery. Unless your case is particularly
complicated, the presumptive number of depositions is almost never
justified. Please be prepared to justify the requested number of depositions
and amount of written discovery.
Candelaria Judge Candelaria will almost always set a Scheduling Conference but
will usually approve a stipulated scheduling order and will only have a
substantive discussion about the case if he has specific concerns with the
proposed scheduling order.
Dominguez Judge Dominguez Braswell only sets a Scheduling Conference when she
Braswell determines it is necessary, or when the parties request one. The parties
may request a Scheduling Conference by including that request on the
first page of the proposed scheduling order.
Prose No additional requirements or instructions.
9
Starnella No additional requirements or instructions.
Gurley Judge Gurley will almost always set a Scheduling Conference but will
usually approve a stipulated scheduling order and will have a substantive
discussion about the case if he has specific concerns with the proposed
scheduling order or proposed discovery. He requires the parties to jointly
email Chambers a Word copy of the Proposed Scheduling Order no later
than 7 days prior to the conference.
O’Hara Judge O’Hara generally sets a Scheduling Conference in each case and
will almost always have a substantive discussion about the claims and
defenses, the need for the requested discovery, and the potential of
settlement. He requires the parties to jointly email Chambers a Word
copy of the proposed scheduling order by the filing deadline. He
generally requires Scheduling Conferences to occur in person.
Chung No additional requirements or instructions.
V. MOTIONS PRACTICE
Motions filed in a case where the Magistrate Judge is the presiding Judge should comport
with the standards set forth in this section. However, where the Magistrate Judge is the referral
Judge, all motions—except discovery motions, motions to restrict, and motions for a protective
order—must comply with the presiding District Judge’s practice standards.
1. Duty to Meet and Confer
Prior to filing a motion or initiating the discovery dispute process, parties have a duty to
meet and confer or make “good faith efforts to confer.” See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a). When
parties have substantive disagreements, such “good faith efforts” generally require meeting either
face to face, over video conference, or by telephone, and not solely through email or written
correspondence. Failure to comply may result in the motion being stricken or denied.
2. Formatting and Page Limits
For cases where the Magistrate Judge is the presiding Judge, parties should make
reasonable efforts to use Westlaw citations. All typed motions shall be formatted with Arial or
Times New Roman black ink in 12-point font. Pro se parties without computer access shall use
best efforts to submit legible handwritten motions.
10
Parties shall prepare any exhibits attached to motions as follows: plaintiffs will number
exhibits as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, etc. and defendants will number exhibits as
Defendant’s Exhibit A, Defendant’s Exhibit B, etc. If the movant attaches exhibits to its reply
brief, the exhibits’ numbers/letters shall continue from those attached to the motion. Each motion
or brief shall cite to an exhibit by its number/letter and not the document’s name (e.g., “Plaintiff’s
Exhibit 1 (Plaintiff’s Deposition)” or “Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1” not “Plaintiff’s Deposition”). Each
exhibit shall be filed as a separate attachment to the motion or brief in ECF and the file name
shall reflect the exhibit’s number/letter (e.g., Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1; Defendant’s Exhibit A).
Excluding summary judgment, unless otherwise ordered, parties’ motions and responses
are limited to fifteen (15) pages and replies are limited to ten (10) pages. For summary judgment,
unless otherwise ordered, motions and responses are limited to twenty (20) pages and replies are
limited to ten (10) pages. Page limitations do not include the case caption, signature block,
certificate of service, exhibits, or the Separate Statement of Facts table filed with summary
judgment motions. Deviations from this rule will not be permitted without leave of Court, which
will be granted only upon a showing of good cause. Any motion for leave to file excess pages shall
be filed at least one (1) business day prior to the deadline for filing the brief at issue. Magistrate
Judges may strike any motion or brief in whole or in part they consider to be verbose, redundant,
unintelligible, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, or that otherwise fails to comply with these
standards and/or the applicable court rules.
3. Oral Argument
The parties may request oral argument, but the Court, in its discretion, may rule on motions
without oral argument. 1
4. Motions to Restrict
Parties seeking to file a motion to restrict access to confidential information must comply
with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 and failure to comply will result in the striking of the motion and the
public availability of the information and documents at issue.
5. Motions for Protective Orders Governing the Exchange of Confidential
Information During Litigation
Parties and counsel should meet and confer about the need for a protective order and engage
in best efforts to agree on proposed language. Parties must file a joint motion that attaches their
proposed protective order as an exhibit to the motion. If the parties cannot agree on language of
the proposed order, the joint motion must describe the nature of the dispute and the parties must
set forth the competing language in the proposed protective order itself.
The proposed order, however, must state that the party designating information as
confidential bears the burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed information to
1
If the parties seek oral argument as a training opportunity for new or inexperienced counsel, they
should so indicate in their request for oral argument. See supra D.C.COLO.MJ I.4.
11
be treated as confidential. The proposed order should not permit the filing of opposed discovery
motions and should instead reflect the discovery dispute process discussed below (see infra
D.C.COLO.MJ VI). The Court will generally not accept protective orders that are unilateral, i.e.,
that only protect confidential information produced by one side. Appendix A has a model joint
protective order parties can submit or modify to the particulars of their case.
Except for Judge Starnella, all Magistrate Judges require parties to jointly email Chambers
a Word copy of the proposed protective order to more efficiently modify and docket orders.
For Chief Judge Varholak, Judge O’Hara, and Judge Chung, to the extent a party objects
to the form of a protective order proposed by the moving party, the objecting party shall attach as
an exhibit to its response to the motion a copy of the protective order proposed by the moving
party which strikes through the text the objecting party proposes to delete and underlines the text
the objecting party proposes to add.
6. Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
The parties shall comply with the presiding District Judge’s practice standards for any
motion to exclude expert testimony referred to the Court. For matters where the Magistrate Judge
is the presiding Judge, the following standards apply.
Unless otherwise ordered, all motions filed under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and any
motion to strike an expert (on the basis of a discovery violation) shall be filed no later than the
deadline for filing dispositive motions that is set forth in the scheduling order. The opponent’s
failure to bring the motion does not relieve the proponent of the burden to show that the testimony
is admissible at trial. The motion must identify with specificity each opinion the moving party
wants to exclude and the grounds on which that opinion is challenged. The movant and respondent
must state if they are requesting an evidentiary hearing and why it is necessary. If a hearing is set,
at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, the parties shall file a joint witness list and joint exhibit
list and exchange any exhibits anticipated to be introduced at the hearing.
7. Motions for Extension of Time and Modification
Motions must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1 and 7.1(a).
Motions for extension of time or modification will be disfavored and they must be filed three (3)
business days before the operative deadline. Motions must include a statement discussing the
number of extensions previously granted and if that extension will affect other currently set dates.
The movant must demonstrate that they have been diligent during the time allotted. Good cause
must be shown, and the Court will take into consideration any potential prejudice to the opposing
party.
8. Motions to Stay Discovery
The District of Colorado generally disfavors motions to stay discovery. However, the Court
will consider such motions on a case-by-case basis.
12
9. Motions to Dismiss
To the extent the case is pending before a Magistrate Judge on consent, Fed. R. Civ. P
12(b) motions to dismiss are discouraged if the alleged defect is correctable by the filing of an
amended pleading. Consistent with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), the parties must confer prior to the
filing of any motion. Where the alleged deficiency is correctable by amendment (e.g., failure to
plead fraud with specificity), the parties should exercise their best efforts to stipulate to appropriate
amendments. If such a motion is nonetheless filed, the movant shall include a conspicuous
statement describing the specific efforts undertaken to comply with this Practice Standard. Counsel
is on notice that failure to comply with this Practice Standard may subject them to an award of
attorney’s fees and costs assessed personally against them.
10. Motions for Summary Judgment
The parties shall comply with the presiding District Judge’s practice standards for any
motion for summary judgment referred to the Magistrate Judge. For matters where the Magistrate
Judge is the presiding Judge, the following standards apply.
A party may not file multiple motions for summary judgment without prior permission
from the Court. This procedure contemplates a single motion by each “side.” Plaintiffs whose
interests are aligned shall file a single motion for summary judgment. Similarly, defendants whose
interests are aligned shall file a single motion for summary judgment.
All Magistrate Judges, except for Judges Prose and O’Hara, require a Separate Statement
of Facts, in the form of a table. If a Magistrate Judge requires this table, the moving party must
initiate the table and provide an editable Word copy to opposing counsel. Opposing counsel shall
fill in their responses and return the editable Word copy to the moving party, so the moving party
can prepare the final table on reply. A sample table is set forth below.
13
More specifically, the first column shall consist of the undisputed statements of material
fact provided by the moving party. In the second column, directly adjacent to the recitation of the
moving party’s material facts and supporting evidence, the opposing party must state whether the
fact is “disputed” or “undisputed.” To the extent a fact is disputed, immediately following the word
“disputed” in the second column, the opposing party shall state the nature of the dispute and
include a specific reference to evidence in the record establishing that the fact is in dispute. If the
opposing party believes there are additional material facts that have not been addressed by the
moving party’s statement (e.g., facts regarding an affirmative defense), the opposing party shall
set forth in the second column each additional material fact in a simple, declarative sentence
supported by a specific reference to evidence in the record establishing that fact. Each of these
additional material facts shall be numbered sequentially and presented in a separate row following
the moving party’s statement of material undisputed facts. In the third column, directly adjacent
to the opposing party’s statement regarding whether the fact is “disputed” or “undisputed,” the
moving party may include any factual reply regarding the opposing party’s response. If the
opposing party added additional material facts to the Separate Statement of Facts, the moving party
also must state whether the additional facts are “disputed” or “undisputed” in the third column
directly adjacent to the additional facts. To the extent a fact is disputed, immediately following the
word “disputed” in the third column, the moving party shall state the nature of the dispute and
include a specific reference to evidence in the record establishing that the fact is in dispute.
A Magistrate Judge may have additional requirements or instructions with respect to
summary judgment motions. To the extent they do, they are noted in the following table.
14
ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENTS
JUDGE OR INSTRUCTIONS FOR MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Varholak No additional requirements or instructions.
Neureiter No additional requirements or instructions.
Candelaria No additional requirements or instructions.
Dominguez No additional requirements or instructions.
Braswell
Prose More than one motion for summary judgment will be allowed in narrow
circumstances where threshold defenses are at issue.
Parties need not file a separate “supporting” brief with the motion; all
facts and argument shall be contained in the motion.
All motions for summary judgment must include a statement of
undisputed facts pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 56.1. The statement of
undisputed facts should be set out in a separate section of the brief, with
each material undisputed fact set forth in a simple, declarative sentence
in a separately numbered paragraph. Each undisputed fact must be
supported by a specific reference to evidence in the record establishing
that fact.
Any party opposing the motion for summary judgment shall include a
separate section in its response admitting or denying each of the moving
party’s undisputed facts. Each admission or denial shall be contained in
a separately numbered paragraph corresponding to the moving party’s
paragraph numbering. Each denial shall be accompanied by a brief
factual explanation and a specific reference to evidence in the record
supporting the denial.
If the party opposing the motion believes that there are additional
material disputed facts that have not been addressed by the moving
party’s statement, the party shall set forth each additional material fact in
a separate section in separately numbered paragraphs. Each additional
disputed fact must be set forth in a simple declarative sentence and
15
supported by a specific reference to evidence in the record establishing
that fact.
If the moving party files a reply in support of its motion, it shall contain:
(1) a separate section containing any factual reply the movant wishes to
make regarding the opposing party’s response to the moving party’s
statement of undisputed facts, made in separately numbered paragraphs
corresponding to the moving party’s original paragraph numbering; and
(2) a separate section admitting or denying the additional disputed facts
set forth by the opposing party, which shall be presented in the same
format prescribed above for the opposing party to respond to the moving
party’s statement of undisputed facts.
Page Limits: No limitation on the number of pages submitted for a
motion and briefs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; however, the Court may strike
the whole or any part of a filing that is prolix, redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous.
Starnella The above requirements do not apply to cases with at least one pro se
litigant, instead all parties will adhere to the following steps:
Step 1: Movant needs to provide a statement of undisputed facts in
opening the brief, setting forth facts in a declarative sentence supported
by specific reference to evidence in record establishing that fact,
separately numbered and paragraphed.
Step 2: Non-movant has to include a separate section in response brief
that admits or denies movants undisputed facts (each numbered and
paragraphed) and denials will include specific reference to evidence in
record. If there are additional material disputed facts, put them in a
separate section of brief (numbered and paragraphed) and reference to
specific evidence in the record.
Step 3: If the moving party replies, the reply needs to contain: separate
section with factual reply to the response and movants undisputed facts
(numbered and paragraphed corresponding movants original
paragraph/numbers) and a separate section admitting or denying
additional disputed facts set forth by non-movant in same format.
Gurley The same procedures as employed by Magistrate Judge Starnella. All
assertions are to be supported and referenced by specific evidence in the
record.
O’Hara Motion: Movant shall provide a statement of undisputed facts, setting
forth facts in a declarative sentence supported by specific citations to
16
evidence in the record establishing that fact, separately numbered and
paragraphed.
Response: Non-movant shall include a separate section in the response
brief that admits or denies movant’s undisputed facts (each numbered and
paragraphed in a corresponding way). Denials shall include specific
citations to evidence in the record. If there are additional material
disputed facts, present them in a separate section (numbered and
paragraphed) with citations to specific evidence in the record.
Reply: If the moving party replies, the reply needs to contain: a separate
section with factual reply to the response and to movant’s undisputed
facts (numbered and paragraphed to correspond to movant’s original
paragraph/numbers) and a separate section admitting or denying
additional disputed facts set forth by non-movant in the same format.
Chung No additional requirements or instructions.
VI. DISCOVERY DISPUTES
Parties shall follow these procedures for their discovery disputes with one exception: these
procedures do not apply to pro se litigants who are incarcerated. Other than the duty to confer
under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), these discovery dispute procedures also do not apply to third
parties. For example, the subject of a third-party subpoena for documents or for a deposition may
file a motion to quash without complying with the specific procedures. However, a dispute among
the parties regarding third-party discovery is indeed a discovery dispute, and the parties must
comply with these procedures.
1. General Information
To avoid unnecessary and expensive motions practice, a party may not file an opposed
discovery motion without first complying with these discovery dispute procedures. Filing a
disputed discovery motion without permission from the Court may result in the motion being
stricken and the imposition of appropriate sanctions. In the event a party prevails in a discovery
dispute, and regardless of whether the Court permits a discovery motion, the Court has the
discretion to award reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A).
2. Duty to Meet and Confer Before Filing
Parties or counsel must meet and confer in “good faith” in accordance with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), either face to face, by videoconference, or by telephone and not solely
by written or email correspondence. The duty to meet and confer requires counsel to be timely and
responsive to opposing counsel’s effort to confer. Parties should discuss their respective positions
in detail and provide a legal and factual basis for each position and any compromise position that
17
would be acceptable. See the table below for additional meet and confer requirements imposed by
some Magistrate Judges.
3. Contacting Chambers with Discovery Disputes
If parties confer and do not successfully reach a resolution, parties must jointly contact
Chambers. Some Magistrate Judges require telephone contact, others require outreach by email.
See the table below for specific instructions associated with contacting each Magistrate Judge’s
Chambers.
4. Court Instructions/Resolution
The resolution of discovery disputes and the required submissions may vary depending on
the Magistrate Judge and depending on the circumstances surrounding the disputes. However,
where a discovery conference or hearing is ordered, it will be held on the record. If the matter is
appropriate for immediate adjudication, the Court will issue an order on the record. If the matter
requires additional briefing, the Court may set an expedited briefing schedule. No party shall
submit documents for in camera review without prior permission from the Court.
See the table below for specific instructions regarding resolution of a discovery dispute
before each Magistrate Judge.
JUDGE INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES
Varholak Duty to Meet and Confer: The parties must meet and confer in person
or on the telephone and make a reasonable, good faith effort to resolve
the discovery dispute without the need for judicial intervention. The
parties must discuss their respective positions in detail, providing the
legal and factual basis for each position, as well as any compromise
position that would be acceptable.
Contacting Chambers: If the parties’ efforts to meet and confer are
unsuccessful, the parties shall jointly call Chambers at 303.335.2365 to
arrange for a discovery hearing before the Court on a time and date
convenient for all parties. The parties should be prepared to discuss the
sufficiency of the parties’ meet and confer efforts and the need for
briefing of the issues in dispute during this initial call. The parties may
request to appear by telephone at the discovery hearing, but the Court
encourages the parties to attend in person when practical.
Court Instruction/Resolution: At least three (3) business days prior to
the hearing, the parties shall submit via email
(
[email protected]) a brief joint statement setting
out each party’s position with regard to each dispute. The joint statement
should not be filed on the Electronic Court Filing system. The purpose of
18
the Court’s discovery dispute procedures, including the requirement of a
joint statement in lieu of seriatim briefing, is to resolve the parties’
discovery disputes in the most efficient and cost-effective manner
possible. Thus, while the Court does not impose any specific page
limitation on the parties’ joint statement, the Court encourages the parties
to be as succinct as possible, presenting a short statement of each dispute
with citations to legal authority where appropriate.
Other: The parties shall retain the original copy of all documents
submitted to the Court during the discovery dispute process (e.g., joint
statements, discovery responses, documents submitted for in camera
review) until sixty (60) days beyond the later of the time to appeal or the
conclusion of any appellate proceedings.
Neureiter Duty to Meet and Confer: No additional requirements.
Contacting Chambers: Parties should jointly call Chambers at 303-
335-2403 if there is a discovery dispute to schedule a prompt telephonic
hearing. A failure to cooperate in the calling of Chambers to at least
schedule the hearing may result in sanctions.
Court Instruction/Resolution: In advance of the discovery dispute
hearing, the parties should submit a Joint Dispute Statement (“JDS”),
emailed to Chambers at least two (2) business days before any related
hearing. The JDS must include statements of the parties’ positions with
regard to each disputed issue. Any disputed discovery requests (such as
objections or disputed 30(b)(6) notices) should be attached as exhibits to
the JDS. The Court encourages parties’ statements to be as succinct as
possible, presenting a short statement of each dispute with citations to
legal authority where appropriate. This is NOT a brief. If discovery
requests, responses, or 30(b)(6) notice are at issue, the parties shall attach
these as exhibits to the JDS.
Other: No additional requirements.
Candelaria Duty to Meet and Confer: No additional requirements.
Contacting Chambers: Parties may jointly call Chambers if there is a
discovery dispute to schedule a prompt hearing. A failure to cooperate in
the calling of Chambers to at least schedule the hearing may result in
sanctions.
Court Instruction/Resolution: In the event the Court orders a JDS, it
must be emailed to Chambers at least two (2) business days before any
related hearing. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a JDS must
19
include a joint statement on the parties’ positions with regard to each
dispute. The Court encourages parties’ statements to be as succinct as
possible in the JDS, presenting a short statement of each dispute with
citations to legal authority where appropriate. The JDS should also
discuss and include headings for names of attorneys who participated in
the discovery conferral and the date the conferences were held. If
discovery requests or responses are at issue, the parties shall attach these
as exhibits to the JDS.
Other: No additional requirements.
Dominguez Duty to Meet and Confer: No additional requirements.
Braswell
Contacting Chambers: Parties may only contact Chambers via joint
email to Chambers. The email shall briefly describe the parties’ conferral
efforts, the disputes at issue, and offer three dates for a videoconference.
If either party prefers an in-person conference they shall so indicate in
the email. The law clerk may set a date for a discovery hearing.
Court Instruction/Resolution: Judge Dominguez Braswell’s Chambers
will respond to your joint email and provide instructions on next steps.
In the event the Court orders a JDS, it must be emailed to Chambers at
least three (3) business days before any related hearing. Unless
otherwise ordered by the Court, a JDS must include a joint statement on
the parties’ positions with regard to each dispute. The Court encourages
parties’ statements to be as succinct as possible in the JDS, presenting a
short statement of each dispute with citations to legal authority where
appropriate. The JDS should also discuss and include headings for names
of attorneys who participated in the discovery conferral and the date the
conferences were held.
Other: No additional requirements.
Prose Duty to Meet and Confer: Parties are allowed to confer over email but
must wait at least twenty-four (24) hours for a response before
proceeding.
Contacting Chambers: If the dispute arises during an ongoing
deposition, counsel must jointly call Chambers. Otherwise, parties may
only jointly email Chambers. The email shall include a JDS that
describes the parties’ conferral efforts and the disputes at issue. A JDS
must set forth the parties’ positions with regard to each dispute and
provide the names of attorneys who participated in the discovery
conferral and the date the conferences were held. The JDS shall be no
20
more than ten (10) pages and shall attach only the necessary portions of
the discovery and/or conferral history at issue.
If another judicial officer of this District has ruled against a party (or
their counsel) on the issue in question, that party or counsel shall
expressly address in the JDS why the Court should take a different
approach.
Court Instruction/Resolution: If a discovery motion is filed, the parties
shall adhere to the page limits for such motions established by the Article
III judge. Additionally, any motion filed under Rule 37 and any response
to such a motion shall address why the court should or should not award
attorney’s fees under the Rule.
Other: D.C.COLO.MJ VI above notes these Discovery Dispute
Procedures do not apply to pro se litigants who are incarcerated. Judge
Prose expands that carve-out to include all pro se litigants.
Starnella Duty to Meet and Confer: No additional requirements.
Contacting Chambers: If the dispute concerns the taking of depositions
or written discovery, parties must jointly email Chambers. The email
shall briefly describe the parties’ conferral efforts and the disputes at
issue. If the dispute arises during an ongoing deposition, counsel must
jointly call Chambers.
Court Instruction/Resolution: If the dispute concerns written discovery
(request for production, interrogatories, etc.), the parties must complete
a written discovery dispute chart in the form on Judge Starnella’s
webpage. The chart must be emailed to Chambers at least three (3)
business days before any related hearing. The chart may include
citations to legal authority but shall not include legal argument or
extensive factual information. The parties shall be prepared to make legal
arguments at the hearing.
Other: No additional requirements.
Gurley Duty to Meet and Confer: The parties must meet and confer in person
or on the telephone and make a reasonable, good faith effort to resolve
the discovery dispute without the need for judicial intervention. The
parties must discuss their respective positions in detail, providing the
legal and factual basis for each position, as well as any compromise
position that would be acceptable.
21
Contacting Chambers: Parties may only contact Chambers via joint
email to Chambers. The email shall briefly describe the parties’ conferral
efforts, the disputes at issue, and offer three proposed dates/times for a
videoconference hearing. If either party prefers an in-person conference
they shall so indicate in the email.
Court Instruction/Resolution: If the dispute concerns written discovery
(request for production, interrogatories, etc.), the parties must complete
a written discovery dispute chart in the form on Judge Starnella’s
webpage. The chart must be emailed to Chambers at least three (3)
business days before any related hearing. The chart may include
citations to legal authority but shall not include legal argument or
extensive factual information. The parties shall be prepared to make legal
arguments at the hearing.
Each party is to submit a Discovery Dispute Statement no longer than
three (3) pages in length (bullet points with legal citations are
permissible) no later than three (3) business days prior to the hearing.
O’Hara Duty to Meet and Confer: The parties must meet and confer in person,
by video conference, or on the telephone and make a reasonable, good
faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute without the need for judicial
intervention. The parties must discuss their respective positions in detail,
providing the legal and factual basis for each position, as well as any
compromise position that would be acceptable.
To Request a Discovery Conference: Send an email, copying all
parties, to Chambers (O’
[email protected]). A Minute
Order will issue to schedule the Discovery Conference and to provide
additional instructions.
Court Instruction/Resolution: Three (3) business days prior to the
Discovery Conference, the parties shall submit via email to Chambers a
brief joint statement setting out each party’s position with regard to each
dispute. The joint statement should not be filed on the Electronic Court
Filing system. The purpose of the Court’s discovery dispute procedures,
including the requirement of a joint statement in lieu of staggered
briefing, is to resolve the parties’ discovery disputes in the most efficient
and cost-effective manner possible. The Court encourages the parties to
be as succinct as possible, presenting a short statement of each dispute
with any legal support the parties would like the Court to consider. The
parties also should provide any relevant documents as attachments to the
statement.
22
Other: Discovery Conferences will be held in person unless good cause
can be shown to proceed by video teleconferencing (VTC).
Chung Duty to Meet and Confer: No additional requirements.
Contacting Chambers: If the dispute arises during an on-going
deposition, the parties must jointly call chambers at (303) 335-2761.
Otherwise, the movant must email
[email protected],
copying all parties, with a brief description of the dispute and a request
for a Discovery Conference.
Court Instruction/Resolution: At least four (4) business days prior to
the hearing, the parties shall submit via email
(
[email protected]) a brief joint statement setting out
each party’s position with regard to each dispute. The joint statement
should not be filed on the Electronic Court Filing system. The purpose of
the Court’s discovery dispute procedures, including the requirement of a
joint statement in lieu of seriatim briefing, is to resolve the parties’
discovery disputes in the most efficient and cost-effective manner
possible. Thus, while the Court does not impose any specific page
limitation on the parties’ joint statement, the Court encourages the parties
to be as succinct as possible, presenting a short statement of each dispute
with citations to legal authority where appropriate. Any disputed
discovery requests (such as objections or disputed 30(b)(6) notices)
should be attached as exhibits to the joint statement.
Other: No additional requirements.
VII. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES
1. In General
Procedures for obtaining a settlement conference vary. When a Magistrate Judge is the
presiding Judge, they may refer the case to another Magistrate Judge for settlement purposes. If a
Magistrate Judge is the referral Judge, parties should first review the Order of Reference. If that
Order does not address settlement, parties should follow the District Judge’s practice standards for
requesting a settlement conference. If the Order of Reference includes authority to conduct a
settlement conference, or if a Magistrate Judge is the presiding Judge, then the parties should
follow each Magistrate Judge’s requirements for requesting a settlement conference as set forth in
the table below.
23
JUDGE INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUESTING
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES
Varholak Unless otherwise instructed, parties shall request a settlement conference
by filing a joint motion.
Neureiter The Parties should always file a motion requesting a settlement conference
explaining why a settlement conference before a federal judicial officer is
justified (as opposed to using a private mediator).
Candelaria Not applicable as Judge Candelaria does not typically hold settlement
conferences.
Dominguez Parties may request a settlement conference at any time by raising
Braswell settlement at a setting or by contacting Chambers, preferably by email.
Prose Parties may request a settlement conference at any time by raising
settlement at a setting or by contacting Chambers, preferably by email.
Starnella At any time after initial disclosures and one round of written discovery
has been completed, parties may request a settlement conference by
raising settlement at a setting or by contacting Chambers by email.
Gurley The parties should follow the District Judge’s practice standards for
requesting a settlement conference.
O’Hara Parties shall request a settlement conference by filing a joint motion.
Additional instructions will be provided to the parties once the settlement
conference has been set.
Chung Parties may request a settlement conference at any time by raising
settlement at a setting or by jointly contacting Chambers by email.
No parties are ever required to settle a case on any particular terms or amounts. However,
if a settlement conference is ordered or agreed upon, all parties must participate in good faith
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).
24
Parties acknowledge that by electing to have the Magistrate Judge conduct a settlement
conference, the Magistrate Judge may become privy to information from the parties that the
Magistrate Judge might not otherwise receive. By proceeding with a settlement conference before
the Magistrate Judge, the parties agree that the Judge’s participation in the settlement conference
shall not be a basis to reasonably question their impartiality going forward in the event their case
does not settle at the settlement conference. Counsel is ORDERED to discuss this dynamic with
their client(s), and all pro se parties or counsel must certify in their confidential statement that they
or their client(s) have been advised of this dynamic and acknowledge that the Magistrate Judge’s
participation in the settlement conference shall not be a basis to reasonably question their
impartiality going forward if the matter does not settle.
2. Party Attendance
Unless otherwise ordered, counsel shall have all parties present at settlement conferences,
including all individually named parties or a representative of each named entity. Permission to
attend a settlement conference remotely is disfavored and will be granted only in the most unusual
circumstances. Any party seeking the remote attendance of a party or other representative should
contact Chambers with opposing counsel to address the request. To the extent the Court permits a
remote appearance, please know that the courthouse is not equipped with wireless access. The
individuals appearing in person must bring a laptop and hotspot with them to connect with the
individuals appearing remotely.
Judge Varholak will, for good cause shown, permit parties to appear by telephone. In such
cases, the individuals in person must simply have a phone number at which the individual
appearing by telephone may be reached. If everyone from one side is permitted to appear by
telephone, then they shall provide to Chambers with one phone number at which every individual
for that side (i.e., counsel and parties/party representatives) may be reached at the time of the
conference.
3. Full Authority
Counsel shall have in attendance all individuals with full authority to negotiate all terms
and demands presented by the case, and full authority to enter into a settlement agreement,
including, but not limited to, an adjuster, if any insurance company is involved. “Full authority”
means that the person has full and unfettered capacity and authority to meet or pay all terms or
amounts which are demanded or sought by the other side of the case without consulting with some
other person, committee, or agency. If any person has limits upon the extent or amount within
which he or she is authorized to settle on behalf of a party, that person does not have “full
authority.” This requirement is not fulfilled by the presence of counsel or an insurance adjustor
alone. Counsel should raise any unique circumstance regarding full authority (e.g., a government
entity) with the Magistrate Judge in advance of the conference.
If any party or party representative attends the settlement conference without full authority,
fails to attend the proceeding without prior Court approval, or fails to participate in the hearings in
good faith, and the case fails to settle, that party may be ordered to pay the attorney’s fees and
costs of the other side.
25
4. Settlement Statements
To hold productive settlement discussions on the day of the conference, counsel shall
prepare and submit two statements. The first statement will be emailed to the other party, copying
Chambers’ email. The second statement will be confidential for the Magistrate Judge’s eyes
only, emailed only to Chambers. Both statements must be emailed no later than five (5) business
days prior to the date of the settlement conference. Neither shall be docketed. Because incarcerated
parties do not have email access, they shall mail their settlement statements to the Magistrate Judge
at their courthouse’s address with attention to the Magistrate Judge’s Chambers.
Statements to the opposing party shall contain an overview of the case from the presenter’s
view and a summary of supporting evidence. The statement to the opposing party may also include
a settlement demand or offer.
Confidential statements to Chambers shall contain any additional comments or information
a party or counsel wishes to share with the Magistrate Judge, including comments with regard to
the perceived weaknesses in your own case, information about the atmosphere or general context
of any negotiations or discussions, and any other information that might aide in the resolution of
the case. Some Magistrate Judges may decide to issue an order providing additional specific
instructions ahead of a settlement conference. Any such order will supersede the directive set out
in this section.
5. Pre-Settlement Conference Call
When feasible, the Court may request that lead counsel for each party separately call
Chambers to schedule a fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minute call ahead of the settlement conference
to discuss the nature of the case, the settlement demands, the respective positions of the parties,
and any potential impediments to the settlement they might foresee.
6. Additional Settlement Conference Requirements
To the extent each Magistrate Judge imposes page limits for settlement statements or other
requirements related to settlement conferences, the table below identifies them.
JUDGE INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCES
Varholak Generally, only the confidential statement to Chambers will be required.
Neureiter Statements are limited to ten (10) pages. The total number of pages of
exhibits attached may not exceed twenty (20) pages. To the extent a party
feels strongly that additional exhibits might be useful for settlement
discussion purposes, they are permitted to bring a binder with additional
26
exhibits to the settlement conference. Judge Neureiter requires separate
pre-settlement conference calls with each counsel.
Candelaria Not applicable as Judge Candelaria does not typically hold settlement
conferences.
Dominguez Statements to the opposing party are limited to ten (10) pages.
Braswell
Confidential statements to the Court are informational. They do not need
to include arguments and can be relatively informal. The Court prefers the
confidential statements as short letters to the Court.
Prose Submissions totaling more than thirty (30) pages must be submitted to
Chambers in hard copy, via regular mail or hand delivery, with exhibits
tabbed. Judge Prose requires separate pre-settlement conference calls with
each counsel.
Starnella The confidential statement to Chambers (not to opposing counsel) must
include the following information: (1) facts of the case; (2) a numbered
list of the known significant disputed issues of fact; (3) computation of
damages; (4) appropriate legal authority; (5) a numbered list of known
significant disputed legal issues; (6) damages survey (settlements, bench
trials, jury awards); (7) actual and anticipated costs of litigation; (8)
history of settlement negotiations; (9) good faith evaluation of the value
of the case, considering the facts, provable damages, damages limitations
(if any), legal issues, witness strengths and weaknesses, procedural status,
timing of trial, comparable case verdicts, any other relevant information,
and a good faith explanation of counsel’s valuation of the case; (10)
preferences for how the settlement conference should be conducted; (11)
any additional confidential comments the party or counsel wishes to make,
such as observations about weaknesses in the opposing party’s case; and
(12) a settlement demand or offer.
Parties may submit up to one hundred (100) pages of additional
settlement materials (e.g., deposition transcripts, exhibits, etc.) either by
email or as hard copies, either to the Clerk of Court or directly to
Chambers in an envelope marked, “Confidential and Private per
Magistrate Judge Starnella Order.”
Gurley Same as Magistrate Judge Starnella except Confidential Settlement
Statements are limited to fifteen (15) pages and the parties may submit up
27
to thirty (30) pages of additional settlement materials directly to Chambers
no later than seven (7) days prior to the Settlement Conference.
O’Hara Statements are limited to ten (10) pages. The total number of pages of
exhibits attached may not exceed twenty (20) additional pages. To the
extent a party feels strongly that additional exhibits might be useful for
settlement discussion purposes, they are permitted to bring a binder with
additional exhibits to the settlement conference.
Chung Statements are limited to ten (10) pages. For submissions with more than
twenty pages of exhibits, exhibits must be submitted to chambers by mail
or hand delivery in bound form with exhibits tabbed.
VIII. TRIAL
In referral cases, a Magistrate Judge may hold the Final Pretrial Conference depending on
the presiding District Judge’s practice standards. When a Magistrate Judge presides over a case set
for trial, the Magistrate Judge will hold a Final Pretrial Conference and a Trial Preparation
Conference. Depending on the case, some Magistrate Judges will combine these as one conference.
In advance of the Trial Preparation Conference, the Magistrate Judge will issue an order addressing
their trial procedures and expectations, including exhibit and witness lists, motions in limine, trial
briefs, voir dire, jury instructions, and verdict forms. Note, some Magistrate Judges have templates
for certain trial submissions on their respective pages on the Court’s website. Counsel are strongly
encouraged to contact Magistrate Judges’ courtroom deputies to coordinate a time before trial to
practice using the courtroom’s technology.
28
APPENDIX A
29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. ____________
________________,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
_______________,
Defendant(s).
______________________________________________________________________________
JOINT PROTECTIVE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
______________, United States Magistrate Judge.
Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to protect the
discovery and dissemination of certain confidential information, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information,
including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to
requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the
disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. As used in this Protective Order, “document” is defined as provided in Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning
of this term.
3. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be information that is
confidential and implicates the privacy or business interests of the parties, including but not limited
to: medical and personal financial information, private personnel information, trade secrets, and
other proprietary business information. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or
used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case.
4. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively,
“CONFIDENTIAL information”) shall not, without the consent of the designating party or further
Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed to:
a. attorneys actively working on this case and persons regularly employed or
associated with said attorneys whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for
trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case;
b. the parties, including their designated representatives and counsel;
c. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this
proceeding to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation;
d. the Court and its employees (“Court Personnel”) and the jury at trial;
e. stenographic and video reporters who are engaged in proceedings
necessarily incident to the conduct of this action;
f. deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses;
g. the Colorado Division of Insurance, law enforcement officers, and/or other
government agencies, as permitted or required by applicable state and federal law, including, but
not limited to, C.R.S. § 10-1-128(5)(a) and Colo. Ins. Reg. 6-5-1;
h. anyone as otherwise required by law; and
i. other persons by written agreement of the parties.
2
5. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL information to any person identified in
sub-paragraph 4(c) (expert witnesses and consultants) or sub-paragraph 4(f) (deponents, witnesses,
or potential witnesses), counsel shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and
obtain from such person a written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective
Order and agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by
counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is
demonstrated by opposing counsel.
6. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in
a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice:
“CONFIDENTIAL.”
7. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL information,
the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to
the provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the
deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as
CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the designation is promptly given
to all counsel of record within thirty days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of
the transcript. All testimony shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL information until the thirty-day
period has expired.
8. A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL information
by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information. The written notice shall
identify the information to which the objection is made and the basis for that objection. Pursuant
to D.C.COLO.MJ VI.2, the Parties shall meet and confer in “good faith” in accordance with
3
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a). If the parties cannot resolve the discovery dispute within ten business
days after the time the notice is received, the parties shall jointly contact Chambers pursuant to
the discovery dispute procedures set forth in D.C.COLO.MJ VI.3–4. If this procedure is timely
pursued, the disputed information shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this
Protective Order until the Court issues a ruling on the dispute. If this procedure is not timely
pursued, the disputed information shall lose its designation as CONFIDENTIAL and shall not
thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with this Protective Order. The party
designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the burden of establishing that good
cause exists for the disputed information to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL.
9. Unless other arrangements are agreed upon in writing by the parties, within thirty
days of the final determination of this action, each person or party who has received
CONFIDENTIAL information shall be obligated to return the CONFIDENTIAL information,
including any copies, to the designating party, or the receiving party may elect to destroy the
CONFIDENTIAL information, including any copies, and certify that it has been destroyed. The
receiving party, however, need not destroy or return (a) any Confidential information that it is
required by law to maintain or (b) one archival copy of all deposition transcripts and all materials
filed with the Court, regardless of whether such materials (including exhibits and appendices)
contain or refer to CONFIDENTIAL information.
10. The termination of this action shall not relieve counsel or other persons obligated
hereunder from their responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of CONFIDENTIAL
information pursuant to this Protective Order. The Court will retain jurisdiction of enforcing this
Protective Order once the case is closed.
4
11. Any request to restrict public access to materials designated as CONFIDENTIAL
pursuant to this Protective Order must comply with the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.
The party seeking to restrict a document filed with the Court shall bear the burden of establishing
that the document should be restricted.
12. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause
shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard.
DATED: ____ of ________, 20__
BY THE COURT:
s
United States Magistrate Judge
5
