HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023CV30659 - East Larimer County Water Dist. v. K & M Co., et al. - 036 - Stipulated Case Management Order1
DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
201 LaPorte Avenue, Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521
970-494-3500
▲COURT USE ONLY▲
Petitioners: EAST LARIMER COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and political
subdivision of the State of Colorado; and NORTH
WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a quasi-
municipal corporation and political subdivision of the
State of Colorado
v.
Respondents: K & M COMPANY, LLLP, et al.
Case Number: 23CV30659
Division: 3B
STIPULATED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated case management order and has approved it.
The Court may have modified the parties’ proposed discovery schedule and made additional changes
as set forth below. Should the parties require modest extensions of these deadlines, they may request
such extensions from the Court and explain why an extension is necessary.
1. The “at issue date” is September 26, 2023.
2. Responsible attorney’s name, address, phone number and email address:
Jamie N. Cotter
Lauren A. Taylor
Spencer Fane LLP
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000
Denver, CO 80203
DATE FILED: June 6, 2024 9:12 AM
CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30659
2
(303) 839-3800
jcotter@spencerfane.com
ltaylor@spencerfane.com
3. Counsel for all parties met and conferred concerning this Proposed Order and each of the issues
listed in Rule 16(b)(3)(A) through (E) on June 5, 2024.
4. Brief description of the case and identification of the issues to be tried (not more than one page,
double-spaced, for each side):
Petitioners East Larimer County Water District (“ELCO”) and North Weld County Water
District (“NWCWD”) (collectively, the “Districts”) have filed a petition in condemnation,
pursuant to C.R.S. § 38-6-101, et. seq., seeking to acquire a permanent easement and a
temporary construction easement over portions of property owned by Respondent K&M
Company, LLLP (“Respondent”) described in and depicted in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 to
the Petition (“Property”). On March 14, 2024, the parties stipulated and agreed to the
District’s immediate possession of limited portions of the Property. On April 23, 2024, the
parties stipulated and agreed to the District’s immediate possession of the entire Property.
The sole remaining issue in this case is the value of the Property taken.
5. The following motions have been filed and are unresolved: N/A
6. Brief assessment of each party’s position on the application of the proportionality factors,
including those listed in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1): Based upon the nature of this dispute, the parties
agree that this case can be addressed adequately by the presumptive discovery limits in
C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2).
7. The lead counsel for each party met and conferred concerning possible settlement. The prospects
for settlement are:
Counsel and the parties have informally conferred regarding settlement and will continue
to do so as appropriate.
Since just compensation is the only remaining issue to be resolved, the focus of settlement
will be on reaching an agreement between the parties regarding compensation for the
Property.
3
8. Deadlines for:
a. Amending or supplementing pleadings (not more than 105 days (15 weeks) from at issue
date): January 9, 2024.
b. Joinder of additional parties (not more than 105 days (15 weeks) from at issue date):
January 9, 2024.
c. Identifying non-parties at fault: N/A
9. Dates of initial disclosures: Monday, July 15, 2024.
Objections, if any, about their adequacy: Parties reserve their right to object.
10. If full disclosure of information under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(C) was not made because of a party’s
inability to provide it, provide a brief statement of reasons for that party’s inability and the
expected timing of full disclosures and completion of discovery on damages: The calculation of
damages, if any shall be disclosed with the parties’ expert reports pursuant to the
deadlines for disclosures of such experts and reports under this Order.
11. Proposed limitations on and modifications to the scope and types of discovery, consistent with
the proportionality factors in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1): The parties do not anticipate deviating from
the presumptive limits of discovery.
Number of depositions per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(A) limit 1 of adverse party + 2 others +
experts per C.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A)): The parties do not anticipate deviating from the
presumptive limits of discovery.
Number of interrogatories per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(B) limit of 30): The parties do not
anticipate deviating from the presumptive limits of discovery.
Number of requests for production of documents per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(D) limit of 20):
The parties do not anticipate deviating from the presumptive limits of discovery.
Number of requests for admission per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(E) limit of 20): The parties do
not anticipate deviating from the presumptive limits of discovery.
Any physical or mental examination per C.R.C.P. 35: N/A.
Any limitations on awardable costs: No limitations beyond those prescribed by applicable
rules and statutes.
State the justifications for any modifications in the foregoing C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2) limitations: N/A.
4
12. Number of experts, subjects for anticipated expert testimony, and whether experts will be under
C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) or (B)(II):
Petitioner: At this time, the Districts intend to engage an expert to appraise the property
under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) and an expert to rebut the opinions of Respondent’s experts.
If additional experts are needed, the Districts will disclose such experts in accordance
with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the timing set forth herein.
Respondent: At this time, Respondent intends to engage an expert to appraise the
property under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) and an expert to rebut the opinions of Petitioners’
experts. Additionally, Respondent intends to engage a civil engineer to opine on damages
to the remainder property caused by Petitioners’ project. If additional experts are needed,
Respondent will disclose such experts in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure
and the time set forth herein.
If more than one expert in any subject per side is anticipated, state the reasons why such expert is
appropriate and consistent with proportionality factors in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) and any differences
among the positions of multiple parties on the same side:
Respondent: Respondent intends to designate two experts – an appraiser and a civil
engineer. The inclusion of both experts is appropriate and consistent with the
proportionality factors in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1). Just compensation is the primary issue in this
case. An accurate assessment of the Property’s value and any resulting damages to the
remainder property is critical to a fair resolution. The appraiser’s evaluation will be
informed, in part, by the civil engineer’s assessment of damages.
Using two experts, each specialized in their respective fields, improves the efficiency of
the discovery process. This approach helps prevent potential disputes over the
qualifications of a single expert to address both property valuation and potential
engineering and construction related damages.
Each side shall be limited to two experts, whether retained or non-retained. If additional
experts are needed, a party may so move for good cause.
13. Proposed deadlines for expert witness disclosure if other than those in C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2):
a. Production of expert reports:
i. Petitioner (126 days (18 weeks) before trial date): 175 days (25 weeks) before trial.
ii. Respondent (98 days (14 weeks) before trial date): 175 days (25 weeks) before trial.
iii. Rebuttal reports (77 days (11 weeks) before trial date): 133 days (19 weeks) before
trial).
5
b. Production of expert witness files: One week after the date of disclosure.
State the reasons for any different dates from those in C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(C): N/A.
14. Oral Discovery Motions. The court does not allow written discovery motions. The parties
will comply with the Court’s Discovery Dispute Procedures set forth in Courtroom 3B Civil
Procedures.
15. Electronically Stored Information. The parties do not anticipate needing to discover a
significant amount of electronically stored information.
16. Parties’ best estimate as to when discovery can be completed: 77 days (11 weeks) before trial.
Parties’ best estimate of the length of the trial: 3 days.
Dates for trial and the trial readiness conference will be set once Commissioners have
been selected, to ensure that the dates will work for all parties involved.
17. Other appropriate matters for consideration:
Deadline for Parties to Exchange Names of Potential Commissioners – Monday, June 24,
2024. Submissions should include three potential commissioners’ full name, home address and
employer/occupation.
Deadline for Parties to File Suggested Names of Potential Commissioners – Monday, July
8, 2024. Submissions should include potential commissioners’ full name, home address and
employer/occupation.
Deadline to Complete Voir Dire of Commissioners – Monday, August 26, 2024. The parties
may ask the Court to allow voir dire to occur via Webex if practical.
6
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the foregoing, including any modifications made by the
court, is and shall be the Case Management Order in this case.
SO ORDERED on June 6, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
________________________
JUAN G. VILLASEÑOR
District Court Judge
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SPENCER FANE LLP
s/ Lauren A. Taylor
Jamie N. Cotter, Esq., No. 40309
Lauren A. Taylor, Esq., No. 52452
Attorneys for Petitioners East
Larimer County Water District and
North Weld County Water District
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN LLC
s/ Joshua T. Mangiagli
Carrie S. Bernstein, Esq, No. 34966
Joshua T. Mangiagli, Esq., No. 52375
Attorneys for Respondent K&M
Company, LLLP