Berg v. Airlines, No. 1:23-cv-01766-NYW-SBP (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (2)
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Colorado (CO)
Court
Colorado Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
Majority
Susan Prose (J.) (unanimous Court)
NONNIE BERG, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 226676Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, D. Colorado.NONNIE BERG, Plaintiff,v.UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01766-NYW-SBP|01/28/2026Susan Prose, United States Magistrate JudgeORDERSusan Prose, United States Magistrate Judge*1 This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff NonnieBerg (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No.185, Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief, ECFNo. 191, and Motion for Relief from Order, ECF No. 209(collectively, the “Motions”). The undersigned considers theMotions pursuant to the Order of Reference, ECF No. 10,the memorandums referring the Motions, ECF Nos. 208 and211, and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court has reviewed theMotions, the related filings, and the applicable law. For thereasons set forth below, the Motions are DENIED.I. ANALYSISThe court first notes that Plaintiff's Motion to CompelDiscovery fails to comply with the court's previous directionsto Plaintiff and Plaintiff's failure to confer with opposingcounsel. At the court's December 16, 2025 status conferenceand in the court's accompanying minute order, the courttold Plaintiff that any forthcoming motion to compel couldonly be filed “after conferral with opposing counsel,” thatany such motion “must be filed on or before December31, 2025,” and that “[t]he court WILL NOT entertain anyrequests to extend this deadline.” ECF No. 177. In Plaintiff'suntimely Motion to Compel Discovery, she states that sheonly conferred with Defendant “on December 10, 2025” andon “earlier dates,” making it clear that she failed to confer withopposing counsel after the court told her she must do so atthe December 16, 2025 status conference. Motion to CompelDiscovery at 4. Though Plaintiff states that she also “sentan email” to Defendant on December 29, 2025 reasserting aprevious request for materials, id. at 10, the court does notfind that this email represents a good-faith attempt to conferwith Defendant before the deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff'sMotion to Compel Discovery is denied.In Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief,Plaintiff attempts to explain the delay in filing her Motionto Compel Discovery by referring to email upload issues.Although the court is typically sympathetic to such issues,in this instance, the court was well-aware of Plaintiff'shistory of attempting to circumvent deadlines and failingto follow proper procedures in this matter when it issuedits order stating that it “WILL NOT entertain any requeststo extend” the applicable deadline. See, e.g., ECF Nos.134, 138, 151, 158, and 160. Plaintiff should have takenspecial care to make sure that her motion was timely filed,and the court accordingly denies her Motion to CompelDiscovery. Moreover, in Plaintiff's Motion for Relief fromOrder, Plaintiff requests relief from the court's order settingthe December 31, 2025 deadline because of a medicalissue that arose on January 2, 2026, after the applicabledeadline. The court denies this request as illogical and asduplicative of Plaintiff's request in the Motion for Leave toFile Supplemental Brief, and accordingly, denies Plaintiff'sMotion for Relief from Order.Finally, as Defendant points out, Plaintiff has included anartificial intelligence certification with each of her motionsas per the court's direction. Motion to Compel Discoveryat 11; Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief at 4;Motion for Relief from Order at 9. Plaintiff's Motion toCompel Discovery specifically states that no AI was usedin drafting the filing, while the other two filings state thatPlaintiff personally reviewed the citations provided thereinfor accuracy. Nonetheless, as Defendant notes, Plaintiffincludes citations to seemingly nonexistent cases within herMotion to Compel Discovery at 6 and 8 (“Hernandez”) andMotion for Relief from Order at 4 (“United States v. Miller”).The court has warned Plaintiff on multiple occasions toeither avoid using artificial intelligence or to very carefullyreview her filings in order to avoid this exact scenario. See,e.g., ECF No. 158, 178. Indeed, at the December 16, 2025status conference in this matter, the court warned Plaintiffthat citing nonexistent cases was a very serious issue, notingthat the Tenth Circuit has considered dismissal of an appealto be an appropriate sanction under similar circumstances.See Moore v. City of Del City, No. 25-6002, 2025 WL3471341, at *3 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025). Accordingly, goingforward, the court will consider recommending that this case
NONNIE BERG, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2be dismissed or recommending other, similar sanctions ifPlaintiff continues to provide the court with citations tononexistent cases or otherwise fails to sufficiently reviewher submissions drafted with the assistance of artificialintelligence.*2 Noting Plaintiff's history of filing superfluous motions,the fact that discovery closed on March 14, 2025, and the factthat Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at ECF No.76 is now fully briefed, any further motions, barring uniquecircumstances, are likely to be struck without further analysispending the court's resolution of the Motion for SummaryJudgment.II. CONCLUSIONFor the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES Plaintiff'sMotions.1DATED: January 28, 2026 BY THE COURT:Susan ProseUnited States Magistrate JudgeAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 226676Footnotes1Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that within fourteen (14) days after service of a MagistrateJudge's order or recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections with the Clerk of the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), (b). Failure to make anysuch objection will result in a waiver of the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge's order or recommendation. See SinclairWyo. Ref. Co. v. A & B Builders, Ltd., 989 F.3d 747, 783 (10th Cir. 2021) (firm waiver rule applies to non-dispositiveorders); but see Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not applywhen the interests of justice require review, including when a “pro se litigant has not been informed of the time periodfor objecting and the consequences of failing to object”).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access