Motion for Continuance of Trial and Stay of Discovery Deadlines

Home Browse Search

consider motions from the parties on this issue, or arguments at trial regarding the appropriate application of C.R.S. § 37- 92- 103(7) and - 102(3). Allowing the Supreme Court to resolve the issue of the proper interpretation of C.R.S. § 37- 92- 103(7) and - 102(3) and City of Fort Collins also would reduce the issues that would need to be tried, thus reducing the scope, length, and expense of any trial. Moreover, if this Court does not continue the trials in the applications, and thus reaches a decision on these issues prior to the Supreme Court issuing its final decision, this Court's decision likely will be appealed pending the Supreme Court's decision. Such an appeal will require additional commitment of resources by the Colorado Supreme Court, in the form of briefings, additional hearings, preparation and review of transcripts, and oral argument. And, if this Court's decision proves to be inconsistent in any part with the Supreme Court's ruling, an appeal to the Supreme Court likely will result in remand to this Court to resolve those inconsistencies. Such a remand would result in further proceedings, additional hearings, additional trial time, and added procedural complexities. A decision to proceed forward to trial on these applications prior to the Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling in Case No. O1 SA252 would likely result in an appeal to the Supreme Court and a significantly greater commitment of resources by both this Court and the Supreme Court. A decision to continue the trial likely would avoid such an appeal. Consequently, to preserve judicial economy, it is appropriate for this Court to continue trial pending the Supreme Court's decision. D. Granting a Continuance and Stay Will Conserve the Parties' Resources Granting a continuance will conserve not only judicial resources, but also the resources of the parties. The Supreme Court's decision in Case No. O1 SA252 will narrow, or perhaps resolve, the possible areas of disagreement on a central issue in this case, thus reducing the scope, length, and expense of any ensuing trial. And, if this Court agrees to continue the trial, there would be no reason not to stay the discovery deadlines as well, thus further reducing the expenses incurred by the parties. Neither the Applicants nor the Objectors would be forced to conduct extensive and expensive discovery without the benefit of the Supreme Court's guidance regarding the central legal question at issue in these cases. Moreover, once this central legal issue is decided, there may be no need for trial. The Objectors believe that there are approaches to settling the remaining issues in these cases. Continuing the trial until the Supreme Court has clarified its City of Fort Collins decision will also conserve the litigants' resources after trial. As described above, if this Court's ruling is issued prior to the final decision of the Supreme Court, this Court's