Loading...
051 Petitioner's Unopposed Mtn for Ext of Time to Respond to Xcel Mtn for Protective Order with Proposed OrderDISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO Boulder County Justice Center 1777 6th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Petitioner: THE CITY OF BOULDER, a Colorado Home Rule City, v. Respondents: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, a Colorado Corporation, d/b/a XCEL ENERGY, MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; and PAUL WEISSMANN, in his official capacity as Treasurer of Boulder County. Attorneys for Petitioner, City of Boulder: Attorney Name: Office of the Boulder City Attorney Thomas A. Carr, No. 42170, City Attorney Kathleen E. Haddock, No. 16011, Senior Counsel Address: P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Phone Number: 303.441.3020 Fax Number: 303.441.3859 Email: carrt@bouldercolorado.gov haddockk@bouldercolorado.gov Attorney Name: Hamre, Rodriguez, Ostrander & Dingess, PC Donald M. Ostrander, No. 12458 Richard F. Rodriguez, No. 25105 Address: 3600 S. Yosemite Street, Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80237 Phone Number: 303.779.0200 Fax Number: 303.779.3662 Email: dostrander@hrodlaw.com rrodriguez@hrodlaw.com COURT USE ONLY Case No. 2019CV030637 Division: 5 PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 Petitioner, City of Boulder (“Boulder”), through its undersigned counsel, respectfully files this Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Public Service Company of Colorado’s (“Xcel”) Motion for Protective Order, as follows: CERTIFICATE REGARDING CONFERRAL Per Rule C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-15(8), undersigned counsel certifies that she has conferred with Xcel’s counsel about this Motion and she is authorized to state that Xcel does not object to the extension of time. In response to resetting the hearing, Xcel does not agree that Boulder is entitled to discovery “for the reasons explained in [Xcel’s] motion for protective order, nor [is Xcel] willing to agree that a hearing should not be set until 30 days after Boulder is satisfied with any discovery it ultimately obtains.” Thus, it appears Xcel consents in part and opposes in part to this Motion. ARGUMENT 1. Previously, the Court set this matter for a hearing on Xcel’s request for attorney fees. The parties had agreed informally to exchange written discovery requests to prepare for such a hearing. Boulder has already provided responses to Xcel’s written discovery and needs Xcel’s written discovery responses to adequately prepare for any attorney fees hearing. 2. On March 26, 2020 Respondent Xcel filed a Motion for Protective Order in response to Boulder’s written discovery to Xcel regarding Xcel’s attorney fees request. 3. The Motion was a surprise to Boulder. While attorneys for Xcel requested an extension of time to respond to Boulder’s discovery, because of miscommunication, Boulder did not know until after it received the Motion that Xcel intended to file a Motion for Protective Order. After reviewing the Motion, the undersigned realized that Xcel’s attorney had sent an e- 3 mail to the undersigned of his intent to file the Motion about 30 hours before it was filed; however, the undersigned did not see the e-mail until after the filing. 4. On March 24, 2020, the Court entered an Order to defer ruling on Xcel’s Motion for Attorney Fees and that the Motion would be moot unless the Court of Appeals upheld the Court’s ruling (the “Deferral Order”). 5. While Boulder believes there is no basis for entry of a protective order, it also is mindful of the Deferral Order and does not wish to litigate matters the Court has said it does not want to consider at this time. Consistent with the Deferral Order, Boulder requests the Court extend Boulder’s time to respond to the Motion until after the Court of Appeals issues its opinion. 6. Boulder requests the Court toll and extend Boulder’s time to respond to Xcel’s Motion until 30 days after the Court of Appeals issues its opinion. If the Court of Appeals upholds the Court’s prior dismissal order, Boulder requests the Court reset the attorney fees hearing no sooner than 30 days after Boulder receives Xcel’s written discovery responses (assuming the Court ultimately denies Xcel’s Motion in whole or in part) to allow Boulder sufficient time to review the responses in advance of an attorney fees hearing. WHEREFORE, Boulder respectfully requests the Court grant this Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Xcel’s Motion for Protective Order as described above. A proposed Order is filed herewith. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of April 2020. 4 BOULDER CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE By: /s/ Kathleen E. Haddock Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney Kathleen E. Haddock, Senior Counsel HAMRE, RODRIGUEZ, OSTRANDER & DINGESS, P.C. By: /s/ Donald M. Ostrander Donald M. Ostrander Richard F. Rodriguez ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 16th day of April 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER was filed and served via Colorado Courts E-Filing or served via email or placed in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and properly addressed to the following: John R. Sperber Sarah M. Kellner Brandee L. Caswell Matthew D. Clark Katharine M. Gray Sean J. Metherell Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202 jack.sperber@faegredrinker.com sarah.kellner@faegredrinker.com brandee.caswell@faegredrinker.com matthew.clark@faegredrinker.com katie.gray@faegredrinker.com sean.metherell@faegredrinker.com Attorneys for Public Service Company of Colorado Olivia D. Lucas Boulder County Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306 olucas@bouldercounty.org Respondent Paul Weissmann, in His Official Capacity as Treasurer of Boulder County By: /s/ Rewa Ward Rewa Ward City of Boulder, City Attorney’s Office