Laserfiche WebLink
and 53 from Plaintiff's Complaint and to strike the language of "and related proceedings" <br />from Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of Administrative Record, on the following grounds: <br />CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-15(8) <br />Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-15(8), the Board and Division have conferred with <br />counsel for Plaintiff regarding this Motion and Plaintiff's counsel has stated it will oppose <br />this Motion. <br />1. Introduction <br />As Plaintiff states in paragraph 1 of its Complaint, this matter concerns judicial <br />review of the Board's Order issued December 8, 2010. This Order was the result of a <br />hearing the Board held in November 2010. The sole issue the Board determined at the <br />November hearing was whether Plaintiff failed to fully comply with a previous Board Order <br />issued August 11, 2010. Thus, the only issue involved in this judicial review is whether the <br />Board properly found that Plaintiff failed to fully comply with the Board's August l lth <br />Order. The propriety of the Board's August 11th Order is not at issue in the present case, nor <br />could it be. <br />The August 11`h Board Order was the result of a separate hearing held in July 2010 in <br />which the Board found that Plaintiff committed various violations and ordered Plaintiff to <br />perform certain corrective actions and pay civil penalties by certain deadlines. The August <br />1 lth Order is the subject of a separate pending judicial review action. See Cotter Corporation <br />(N. S.L.) v. Mined Land Reclamation Board, et al, Denver District Court, 2010 CV 7609. <br />Thus, the August 11th Board Order is not and could not be subject to the current judicial <br />review. <br />Despite this, Plaintiff's Complaint in the present matter includes 44 paragraphs <br />regarding allegations that only relate to the August 11th Board Order and the accompanying <br />judicial review but have no relation and are immaterial to the current judicial review. <br />Similarly, Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of Administrative Record seeks to include <br />documents that only relate to the Board's July 2010 hearing. Those documents are <br />irrelevant, immaterial and were specifically excluded from the current administrative record <br />by the Board. <br />II. The Complaint and Plaintiffs Motion to Certify Administrative Record Seek to <br />Include Matters that are Irrelevant and Immaterial <br />Under C.R.C.P. 12(f), upon motion filed by a party before responding to a pleading <br />(here, the Complaint), this Court has the discretion to strike any "redundant, immaterial, <br />2