Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:08 -cv- 01624- WJM -MJW Document 102 Filed 02/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 12 <br />make three attempts to contact counsel for Plaintiffs on the day of the deadline, but <br />counsel for Plaintiffs did not respond until very late in the afternoon and then proposed <br />meeting and conferring the next day, (2) the 28 -day deadline to file a motion under Rule <br />59(e) is jurisdictional, and (3) the primary relief sought by Defendants is complete <br />dissolution of the injunction, which makes the Motion comparable to a potentially <br />dispositive motion, which is not subject to the meet and confer requirement under <br />D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. The Court accordingly declines to deny the Motion on this <br />ground. <br />2. Whether the Court Committed Legal Error by Issuing the Injunction <br />Defendants first argue that the Injunction was not warranted because the Court <br />failed to adequately evaluate the governing factors from Monsanto Co. v. Geertson <br />Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2756 (2010), and in particular the requirement of <br />irreparable harm. (ECF No. 95, at 5 -7.) The Court disagrees. The Court carefully <br />considered the Monsanto factors, applied them to the facts, and found the requisite <br />irreparable harm. (ECF No. 94, at 49 -50.) The Court did not clearly err in reaching this <br />conclusion. Therefore, the Court denies the Motion as to this argument. <br />3. Further Steps in Completing EIS <br />Defendants also emphasize that they have completed significant new steps in <br />working on an EIS, including creating a draft schedule for the EIS's completion. (ECF <br />No. 95, at 7 -10.) Defendants made similar arguments to the Court in their original <br />Response brief, in which they argued that this action was prudentially moot because of <br />Defendants' plan to create an EIS. The Court rejected those arguments, finding <br />4 <br />