My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998-02-24_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1998-02-24_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2021 6:16:04 AM
Creation date
5/2/2012 2:24:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
2/24/1998
Doc Name
Letter confirming conversation concerning dispute of respective discovery request
From
State of Colorado Department of Law
To
Ed Mulhall
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COl°�P <br /> ti O <br /> GALE A.NORTON STATE OF COLORADO STATE SERVICES BUILDING <br /> Attorney General 1525 Sherman Street-5th Floor <br /> MARTHA PHILLIPS ALLBRIGHT DEPARTMENT OF LAW Denver,Colorado 80203 <br /> PhonChief Deputy Attorney General FAX (303)866-56901 <br /> OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL <br /> RICHARD A.WESTFALL <br /> Solicitor General <br /> February 24, 1998 <br /> Ed Mulhall <br /> Delaney & Balcomb <br /> 818 Colorado Ave. <br /> P.O. Drawer 790 <br /> Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 <br /> RE: Comm'rs of Pitkin County v. MCR and LaGiglia v. DMG (Civil No. 97CV 131-3), Pitkin <br /> County District Court <br /> Dear Mr. Mulhall: <br /> This letter is to confirm our conversation of this morning concerning the dispute about <br /> our respective discovery requests. Although the Division does not agree with your position <br /> concerning its discovery request or concerning the Defendants' discovery request, the Division <br /> is willing to resolve this matter in order to move the case along. <br /> The Division agrees to respond to your interrogatories and to not object as to the number <br /> of the Defendants' interrogatories on two conditions. One,that the Defendants waive any <br /> objection as to the number of the Division's interrogatories and that they answer all of the <br /> Division's discovery request. Two, that the Division have until March 13, 1998,to answer the <br /> Defendants' discovery request. <br /> You have accepted this resolution of the dispute as long as the Defendants also have until <br /> March 13 to answer the Division's discovery request. This is agreeable to the Division. <br /> You mentioned that you think it might be necessary to extend Case Management Order <br /> deadlines. I am not certain that is necessary at this point, given that we have only extended the <br /> time for answering discovery requests by 10 days. However, I would be willing to discuss with <br /> you any request you may have to extend Case Management deadines. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.