IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02233-WYD-MJW

CBS OUTDOOR, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

800 LINCOLN LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company,

Defendant(s).

ORDER REGARDING

 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER TO DESIGNATE A

THIRD EXPERT WITNESS (DOCKET NO. 35)

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to

Designate a Third Expert Witness (docket no. 35). The court has reviewed the subject

motion (docket no. 35) and the response (docket no. 38) thereto. In addition, the court

has taken judicial notice of the court file and has considered applicable Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and case law. The court now being fully informed makes the following

findings of fact, conclusions of law and Order. 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The court finds:

1. That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties

to this lawsuit;

2. That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;

Case 1:11-cv-02233-WYD-MJW Document 39 Filed 04/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

3. That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to

be heard;

4. That in the subject motion (docket no. 35), Plaintiff requests that

this court allow a third expert witness to be endorsed. Plaintiff

seeks leave to endorse Bruce Brenneman as its third expert

witness. In this case, Mr. Brenneman has already provided a

declaration which was attached to Plaintiff’s Response to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 21). 

Plaintiff argues that Mr. Brenneman’s expert testimony would be

consistent with his declaration and would focus on current customs

and practices within the outdoor advertising industry, including, but

not limited to, customary standards regarding the ownership and

conveyances of rooftop signs, and the customary usage of terms in

the industry. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Mr. Brenneman will

likely be a fact witness even if he is not permitted to be designated

as an expert witness; and

5. That Plaintiff has established “good cause” to amend the

Scheduling Order and to allow a third expert to be endorsed. See

Scheduling Order (docket no. 20), Section 13, page 11, wherein it

states, “[t]he scheduling order may be altered or amended only

upon a showing of good cause.”

Accordingly, the subject motion (docket no. 35) should be granted. 

Case 1:11-cv-02233-WYD-MJW Document 39 Filed 04/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

The court notes that no trial date has been set in this matter. The

Final Pretrial Conference is not set until August 20, 2012. In the

event that any party believes that an extension of the discovery cut

off date is needed, such party may move to extend discovery for a

reasonable period and to alter any other deadlines. Thus, any

prejudice that might arise from this Order is capable of being cured.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this

court ORDERS:

1. That Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Designate a

Third Expert Witness (docket no. 35) is GRANTED;

2. That each side may endorse a third expert witness. The Rule 16

Scheduling Order (docket no. 20) is amended consistent with this

Order;

3. That the parties shall designate their third expert witness consistent

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) on or before April 23, 2012; and

4. That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this

motion.

Done this 11th day of April 2012.

BY THE COURT

s/Michael J. Watanabe

MICHAEL J. WATANABE

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02233-WYD-MJW Document 39 Filed 04/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3