Preview
DISTRICT COURT, ADAMS COUNTY, COLORADO
1100 Judicial Center Drive
Brighton, CO 80601 DATE FILED: January 18, 2023 2:38 PM
FILING ID: 8EFAE3FC41E93
CASE NUMBER: 2022CV31399
BRITTANY BUCKNER,
Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF COMMERCE CITY, a Colorado Municipal
Corporation,
Defendant ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Reid J. Elkus, #32516 Case No.: 2022CV31399
Lucas Lorenz, #35739
Elkus & Sisson, P.C. Division: C
7100 E. Belleview Ave., Suite 101
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Phone: 303-567-7981
Email: relkus@elkusandsisson.com
llorenz@elkusandsisson.com
[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 16(b), the parties submit the following proposed Case Management
Order:
1. The “at issue” date is December 9, 2022.
2. Responsible Attorney:
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Reid J. Elkus, #35825
Lucas Lorenz, #35739
Elkus & Sisson, P.C.
7100 East Belleview Avenue, Suite 101
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
(303) 567-7981
relkus@elkusandsisson.com
llorenz@elkusandsisson.com
3. Lead Counsel and Meet and Confer: Lead counsel for the Plaintiff is Reid Elkus.
Lead counsel for the City is Marni Nathan Kloster. Counsel for each party conferred via email
concerning this proposed Case Management Order and each of the issues listed in Rule 16(b)(3)(A)
through (E) between January 11, 2023 and the date of filing.
4. Description of the Case: This is an action wherein the Plaintiff has alleged two
claims for relief, one under C.R.S. 8-13.5-104 and one under CRS 24-34-402.3, both related to
expressing breast milk. The City has denied wrongdoing.
Plaintiff:
Ms. Buckner is a Police Officer with the City of Commerce City Police Department. In
December 2020 Ms. Buckner went on maternity leave for the birth of her child. On March 20,
2021, Ms. Buckner returned from maternity leave to again take on her regular duties as a Police
Officer with the City of Commerce City Police Department. At all times relevant, Ms. Buckner
was a nursing mother.
Upon her return from maternity leave, Ms. Buckner was assigned to the North Station.
After being on maternity leave, Ms. Buckner requested an accommodation from Commander
Kendall Grove and Sergeant William Schoepflin. The specific accommodation request Ms.
Buckner asked was to be able to express breastmilk in a private lactation room. Ms. Buckner was
advised that she could use the traffic office at the North Station. If the traffic office was being
used Ms. Buckner was then advised that she could drive 4.2 miles away from her assigned station
and use the lactation room at the Commerce City recreation center. The ideal location for Ms.
Buckner was the North Station as that was where she was assigned. Having to drive 4.2 miles
when Ms. Buckner needed to express breastmilk was not accommodating due to the fact that
immense pressure would build in her breast. This pressure caused the need to immediately express
to relieve that pressure.
When the Sergeant offices and traffic officers were occupied, Ms. Buckner would then
have to resort to using a bathroom or common area to express. Due to being on patrol, there were
times that Ms. Buckner would not make it back to the North Station to express. In those times,
Ms. Buckner would try to use the lactation room at the recreation center but due to safety concerns
at the recreation center she had to stop using that facility. Additionally, there were multiple times
that Ms. Buckner had to express while she was in a patrol car. In those instances, she would have
to place her breastmilk inside a cooler which she frequently traveled with to ensure that her
breastmilk would not expire. Unfortunately, due to being frequently called out for service, Ms.
Buckner would respond to calls which then prohibited her from getting the breastmilk that was
inside the cooler to be refrigerated at the North Station. During those times, Ms. Buckner would
lose breastmilk. When Ms. Buckner would be able to make it back to the North Station and when
the traffic room was occupied and the Sergeant’s officer was unavailable, Ms. Buckner was then
required to use the North Station’s bathroom to express.
Unfortunately, from her return from maternity leave on March 20, 2021 until February
2022, the North Station did not have a designated lactation room for nursing mothers. After
months of complaining, Ms. Buckner finally met with the City of Commerce City’s Human
Resources officer. Ms. Buckner met with Human Resources to complain about the failure to
accommodate Ms. Buckner’s need for an accommodation. Instead of installing a lactation room
(which the City finally did approximately 3-4 months later) Ms. Buckner was also not transferred
to the South Station where there was a lactation room.
Ms. Buckner has brought the following claims for relief: (1) Workplace Accommodations
for Nursing Mothers - C.R.S. § 8-13.5-104 and (2) Unlawful Discrimination Pursuant to C.R.S. §
24-34-402.3.
Defendant:
At all times during Plaintiff’s employment the City has worked extensively with her
regarding modified duty and time off surrounding pregnancies, as well as the expressing of
breast milk. At all times involving Plaintiff, the City had multiple locations available to Plaintiff
for use in expressing breast milk, including rooms in three different buildings designated or set
up for that purpose. The City denies the allegations set forth in the Plaintiff’s Complaint and
above. Further, Plaintiff failed to comply with policy and report alleged concerns or incidents at
or around the time they allegedly occurred. Despite Plaintiff’s violation of policy, when the City
first became aware of Plaintiff’s allegations, which was only after receipt of the Plaintiff’s
charge of discrimination, the City took appropriate action and has continued to attempt to work
with Plaintiff since that date, despite improper action by Plaintiff at times.
The City incorporates its Answer and the defenses set forth herein.
5. Pending Motions: Motion to Consolidate.
6. Evaluation of Proportionality Factors:
The Parties believe the proportionality factors do not require any modification of
presumptive limits under C.R.C.P. 26.
7. Initial Exploration of Prompt Settlement and Prospects for Settlement: The parties
have not explored settlement since the Colorado Civil Rights Division provide the Plaintiff a right
to sue letter.
8. Proposed Deadlines for Amendments:
Amending or supplementing pleadings, and for joinder of additional parties: March
24, 2023.
Identification of non-parties at fault, if any: March 9, 2023 (90 days after
commencement of the action per C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5)
9. Disclosures: The parties shall exchange initial disclosures on or before January 20,
2023.
10. Computation and Discovery Relating to Damages:
Plaintiff has suffered emotional pain and suffering as a result of the actions of the
Defendant. The Plaintiff is not claiming loss wages.
Defendant is not presently seeking damages in this case, but reserves the right to pursue
costs and fees as the prevailing party, or such other relief as the Court deems proper.
11. Discovery Limits and Schedule:
Depositions: Each side may take depositions of each adverse party, persons
expected to give expert testimony disclosed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2), and up
to 2 other persons.
Per party limit 1 of adverse party + 2 others + experts, per C.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A)),
and Defendant may be allowed to take the depositions of treating physicians of
Plaintiff to the extent that Plaintiff does not designate them as experts: With this
exception, the parties agree that the presumptive number of depositions is adequate.
Written interrogatories: the presumptive limit of 30 per side.
Requests for production of documents or tangible things: the presumptive limit of
20 per side.
Requests for admission: 20 per side.
Requests for admission of the genuineness of documents: 50 per side.
The deadline for completion of discovery, including responses to written
discovery, shall be 49 days before the trial date.
12. Subjects for Expert Testimony to be noticed separately.
Plaintiffs:
Medical experts
Defendants:
Medical and/or police practice experts.
13. Proposed Deadlines for Expert Disclosures:
Claiming party: 126 days before trial
Defending party: 98 days before trial
Contradictory/Rebuttal: 77 days before trial
Expert witness files: 14 days after production of expert disclosures
14. Discovery Motions: The parties shall, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 37(a), file a Motion for
Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery to resolve discovery disputes, or upon receipt of a Pre-
Trial Order from this Court, shall follow this Court’s procedures. The court does/does not require
discovery motions to be presented orally, without written motions or briefs, and may include such
other provisions as the court deems appropriate.
15. Electronically Stored Information: The parties do not anticipate needing to
discover a significant amount of electronically stored information. Though Plaintiffs anticipate
the need to discover some electronically stored information from Defendant, e.g., videos,
Plaintiff does not anticipate it to be a significant amount.
16. Parties’ best estimate as to when discovery can be completed: 49 days before trial.
Trial Date and Estimated Length of Trial: Depending on the outcome of the Defendant’s
Motion to Consolidation between a four and five day jury trial.
Pre-Trial Conference: to be determined at the Case Management Conference
Trial will commence on (or will be set by the court later): To be determined at the Case
Management Conference
17. Other Appropriate Matters: Defendant requests to discuss any Court specific rules
or limitations surrounding dispositive motions.
Dated January 18, 2023. ELKUS & SISSON, P.C.
/s/ Reid J. Elkus
Reid J. Elkus
Stephen Holmes
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NATHAN DUMM & MAYER, PC
/s/ Marni Nathan Kloster
Marni Nathan Kloster
Ashley Hernandez-Schlagel
Attorneys for Defendant
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.
Dated this ___ day of ______________, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
District Court Judge
Preview
DISTRICT COURT, ADAMS COUNTY, COLORADO 1100 Judicial Center Drive Brighton, CO 80601 DATE FILED: January 18, 2023 2:38 PM FILING ID: 8EFAE3FC41E93 CASE NUMBER: 2022CV31399 BRITTANY BUCKNER, Plaintiff v. CITY OF COMMERCE CITY, a Colorado Municipal Corporation, Defendant ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲ Attorneys for Plaintiff: Reid J. Elkus, #32516 Case No.: 2022CV31399 Lucas Lorenz, #35739 Elkus & Sisson, P.C. Division: C 7100 E. Belleview Ave., Suite 101 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: 303-567-7981 Email: relkus@elkusandsisson.com llorenz@elkusandsisson.com [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 16(b), the parties submit the following proposed Case Management Order: 1. The “at issue” date is December 9, 2022. 2. Responsible Attorney: Counsel for Plaintiff: Reid J. Elkus, #35825 Lucas Lorenz, #35739 Elkus & Sisson, P.C. 7100 East Belleview Avenue, Suite 101 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (303) 567-7981 relkus@elkusandsisson.com llorenz@elkusandsisson.com 3. Lead Counsel and Meet and Confer: Lead counsel for the Plaintiff is Reid Elkus. Lead counsel for the City is Marni Nathan Kloster. Counsel for each party conferred via email concerning this proposed Case Management Order and each of the issues listed in Rule 16(b)(3)(A) through (E) between January 11, 2023 and the date of filing. 4. Description of the Case: This is an action wherein the Plaintiff has alleged two claims for relief, one under C.R.S. 8-13.5-104 and one under CRS 24-34-402.3, both related to expressing breast milk. The City has denied wrongdoing. Plaintiff: Ms. Buckner is a Police Officer with the City of Commerce City Police Department. In December 2020 Ms. Buckner went on maternity leave for the birth of her child. On March 20, 2021, Ms. Buckner returned from maternity leave to again take on her regular duties as a Police Officer with the City of Commerce City Police Department. At all times relevant, Ms. Buckner was a nursing mother. Upon her return from maternity leave, Ms. Buckner was assigned to the North Station. After being on maternity leave, Ms. Buckner requested an accommodation from Commander Kendall Grove and Sergeant William Schoepflin. The specific accommodation request Ms. Buckner asked was to be able to express breastmilk in a private lactation room. Ms. Buckner was advised that she could use the traffic office at the North Station. If the traffic office was being used Ms. Buckner was then advised that she could drive 4.2 miles away from her assigned station and use the lactation room at the Commerce City recreation center. The ideal location for Ms. Buckner was the North Station as that was where she was assigned. Having to drive 4.2 miles when Ms. Buckner needed to express breastmilk was not accommodating due to the fact that immense pressure would build in her breast. This pressure caused the need to immediately express to relieve that pressure. When the Sergeant offices and traffic officers were occupied, Ms. Buckner would then have to resort to using a bathroom or common area to express. Due to being on patrol, there were times that Ms. Buckner would not make it back to the North Station to express. In those times, Ms. Buckner would try to use the lactation room at the recreation center but due to safety concerns at the recreation center she had to stop using that facility. Additionally, there were multiple times that Ms. Buckner had to express while she was in a patrol car. In those instances, she would have to place her breastmilk inside a cooler which she frequently traveled with to ensure that her breastmilk would not expire. Unfortunately, due to being frequently called out for service, Ms. Buckner would respond to calls which then prohibited her from getting the breastmilk that was inside the cooler to be refrigerated at the North Station. During those times, Ms. Buckner would lose breastmilk. When Ms. Buckner would be able to make it back to the North Station and when the traffic room was occupied and the Sergeant’s officer was unavailable, Ms. Buckner was then required to use the North Station’s bathroom to express. Unfortunately, from her return from maternity leave on March 20, 2021 until February 2022, the North Station did not have a designated lactation room for nursing mothers. After months of complaining, Ms. Buckner finally met with the City of Commerce City’s Human Resources officer. Ms. Buckner met with Human Resources to complain about the failure to accommodate Ms. Buckner’s need for an accommodation. Instead of installing a lactation room (which the City finally did approximately 3-4 months later) Ms. Buckner was also not transferred to the South Station where there was a lactation room. Ms. Buckner has brought the following claims for relief: (1) Workplace Accommodations for Nursing Mothers - C.R.S. § 8-13.5-104 and (2) Unlawful Discrimination Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-34-402.3. Defendant: At all times during Plaintiff’s employment the City has worked extensively with her regarding modified duty and time off surrounding pregnancies, as well as the expressing of breast milk. At all times involving Plaintiff, the City had multiple locations available to Plaintiff for use in expressing breast milk, including rooms in three different buildings designated or set up for that purpose. The City denies the allegations set forth in the Plaintiff’s Complaint and above. Further, Plaintiff failed to comply with policy and report alleged concerns or incidents at or around the time they allegedly occurred. Despite Plaintiff’s violation of policy, when the City first became aware of Plaintiff’s allegations, which was only after receipt of the Plaintiff’s charge of discrimination, the City took appropriate action and has continued to attempt to work with Plaintiff since that date, despite improper action by Plaintiff at times. The City incorporates its Answer and the defenses set forth herein. 5. Pending Motions: Motion to Consolidate. 6. Evaluation of Proportionality Factors: The Parties believe the proportionality factors do not require any modification of presumptive limits under C.R.C.P. 26. 7. Initial Exploration of Prompt Settlement and Prospects for Settlement: The parties have not explored settlement since the Colorado Civil Rights Division provide the Plaintiff a right to sue letter. 8. Proposed Deadlines for Amendments: Amending or supplementing pleadings, and for joinder of additional parties: March 24, 2023. Identification of non-parties at fault, if any: March 9, 2023 (90 days after commencement of the action per C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5) 9. Disclosures: The parties shall exchange initial disclosures on or before January 20, 2023. 10. Computation and Discovery Relating to Damages: Plaintiff has suffered emotional pain and suffering as a result of the actions of the Defendant. The Plaintiff is not claiming loss wages. Defendant is not presently seeking damages in this case, but reserves the right to pursue costs and fees as the prevailing party, or such other relief as the Court deems proper. 11. Discovery Limits and Schedule: Depositions: Each side may take depositions of each adverse party, persons expected to give expert testimony disclosed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2), and up to 2 other persons. Per party limit 1 of adverse party + 2 others + experts, per C.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A)), and Defendant may be allowed to take the depositions of treating physicians of Plaintiff to the extent that Plaintiff does not designate them as experts: With this exception, the parties agree that the presumptive number of depositions is adequate. Written interrogatories: the presumptive limit of 30 per side. Requests for production of documents or tangible things: the presumptive limit of 20 per side. Requests for admission: 20 per side. Requests for admission of the genuineness of documents: 50 per side. The deadline for completion of discovery, including responses to written discovery, shall be 49 days before the trial date. 12. Subjects for Expert Testimony to be noticed separately. Plaintiffs: Medical experts Defendants: Medical and/or police practice experts. 13. Proposed Deadlines for Expert Disclosures: Claiming party: 126 days before trial Defending party: 98 days before trial Contradictory/Rebuttal: 77 days before trial Expert witness files: 14 days after production of expert disclosures 14. Discovery Motions: The parties shall, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 37(a), file a Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery to resolve discovery disputes, or upon receipt of a Pre- Trial Order from this Court, shall follow this Court’s procedures. The court does/does not require discovery motions to be presented orally, without written motions or briefs, and may include such other provisions as the court deems appropriate. 15. Electronically Stored Information: The parties do not anticipate needing to discover a significant amount of electronically stored information. Though Plaintiffs anticipate the need to discover some electronically stored information from Defendant, e.g., videos, Plaintiff does not anticipate it to be a significant amount. 16. Parties’ best estimate as to when discovery can be completed: 49 days before trial. Trial Date and Estimated Length of Trial: Depending on the outcome of the Defendant’s Motion to Consolidation between a four and five day jury trial. Pre-Trial Conference: to be determined at the Case Management Conference Trial will commence on (or will be set by the court later): To be determined at the Case Management Conference 17. Other Appropriate Matters: Defendant requests to discuss any Court specific rules or limitations surrounding dispositive motions. Dated January 18, 2023. ELKUS & SISSON, P.C. /s/ Reid J. Elkus Reid J. Elkus Stephen Holmes Attorneys for Plaintiffs NATHAN DUMM & MAYER, PC /s/ Marni Nathan Kloster Marni Nathan Kloster Ashley Hernandez-Schlagel Attorneys for Defendant 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. Dated this ___ day of ______________, 2023. BY THE COURT: __________________________ District Court Judge