-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02273-CMA-KLM

TED ARCHULETA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERRY MAKETA, El Paso County Sheriff, individually and in his capacity as a paid peace

officer and as an employee and/or agent of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office and the

County of El Paso,

PAULA PRESLEY, Detention Bureau Chief, in her capacity as a paid peace officer and as

an employee and/or agent of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office and the County of El

Paso,

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, 

DEPUTY FORD, in her capacity as a paid peace officer and as an employee and/or agent

of El Paso County Sheriff’s Office and the County of El Paso, and

JOHN DOES, individually and in their capacity as governmental officers,

Defendants.

ORDER SETTING

SCHEDULING/PLANNING CONFERENCE

 (as amended effective September 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 Christine M. Arguello on September 13, 2011.

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 November 3, 2011, commencing at 10:30 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. 
-2-

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

The plaintiff 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) and prepare a proposed Scheduling Order in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(f), 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, 2009, 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 cases seeking review on an administrative record. 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 paragraph 8(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. 7.1(A). 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
-3-

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 courtordered deadline which has not been vacated by court order may result in the imposition of

sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).

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: September 13, 2011 at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Kristen L. Mix 

Kristen L. Mix

United States Magistrate Judge