Opinion
2:21-cv-01706-JHC
01-23-2023
EMANUEL D. FAIR, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, et al.; CITY OF REDMOND, a municipal entity and political subdivision of the State of Washington, et al.; the REDMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT; BRIAN COATS, in his personal capacity; RON J. HARDING, in his personal capacity; LENWORTH G. KNOWLES, in his personal capacity; GREG MAINS, in his personal capacity; GREG L. PATRICK, in his personal capacity; LON SHULTZ, in his personal capacity; DAVID SOWERS, in his personal capacity; ANN MARIE FEIN, in her personal capacity; SHAWN MCCRILLIS, in his personal capacity; KRISTI WILSON, in her personal capacity; TERRY MORGAN, in his personal capacity; JAN FULLER, in her personal capacity; JEFF BAIRD, in his personal capacity; TODD CLARK, in his Personal Capacity; JOHN DIAZ, in his personal capacity, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants.
Robert L. Christie, Ann E. Trivett, Stuart A. Cassel, Christie Law Group PLLC, Attorneys for City Defendants Carla B. Carlstrom, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for County Defendants Ryan D. Dreveskracht, Corinne Sebren, Galanda Broadman PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff
Noted for Consideration: January 23, 2023
Robert L. Christie, Ann E. Trivett, Stuart A. Cassel, Christie Law Group PLLC, Attorneys for City Defendants
Carla B. Carlstrom, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for County Defendants
Ryan D. Dreveskracht, Corinne Sebren, Galanda Broadman PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THE OUTCOME OF DEFENDANTS' CR 12(c) MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND ORDER TO STAY
HONORABLE JOHN H. CHUN United States District Court Judge
I. STIPULATION
For good cause shown and pursuant to Federal and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(6), and this Court's broad discretion over discovery matters, Plaintiff Emanuel D. Fair, Defendants City of Redmond, Brian Coats, Ron J. Harding, Greg Mains, Greg L. Patrick, Lon Schultz, David Sowers, Ann Marie Fein, Shawn McCrillis, Kristi Wilson, Terry Morgan, Lenworth G. Knowles, and Jan Fuller (collectively “the City Defendants”), and Defendants King County, Jeff Baird, Todd Clark, and John Diaz (collectively “the County Defendants”) respectfully and jointly move the Court for entry of an order staying all discovery deadlines in this matter until a decision has been issued on the Defendants' CR 12(c) motions to dismiss. (Dkt. 43, 67.)
For good cause shown and with the Court's consent, the Court may modify the deadlines in the scheduling order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4); see also LCR 16(b)(6). Further, this Court has “broad discretion to stay discovery pending the resolution of potentially dispositive motions.” See Dorian v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00269, 2022 WL 3155369, *1 (W.D. Wash Aug. 8, 2022); see also Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Taylor v. McDonough, Case No. 20-5471 RJB, 2021 WL 9649333 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2021).
In January 2023, the County Defendants inquired with Court via email about the status of its motion to dismiss. The Court responded that there was no timeline for a decision on the motion. The Court also invited the parties to file a motion to adjust the case schedule if appropriate. The parties previously submitted a stipulated motion and order to amend the case schedule in August 2022, which the Court granted. (Dkt. 65.)
After the Court's January 2023 email, the parties conferred regarding the status of discovery and whether to modify the case schedule. The parties have cooperatively exchanged extensive written discovery thus far, and the next step in discovery will involve depositions and then expert disclosures and reports. Depositions, and preparation thereof, involve significant time and expense for any party. Similarly, preparation of expert reports will also require the parties and their experts to expend significant time and resources.
The parties also conferred about the efficiency of any further discovery, written or otherwise, while the motions to dismiss are pending. The parties agree that, rather than seeking further extensions of the case deadlines, and potentially expending time and resources on multiple stipulations to continue, a more efficient course of action would be to file a stipulated motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Once a decision has been issued, if necessary, the parties will confer and prepare a new case schedule for the Court's consideration. The parties now jointly move the Court for an order to that effect.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. All discovery deadlines in this case shall be stayed until the Court issues a decision on the pending motions to dismiss filed by the City Defendants, (Dkt. 43), and the County Defendants, (Dkt. 67).
2. After the Court has issued a decision on the aforementioned motions to dismiss, the parties shall confer and submit to the Court a stipulated order lifting the stay and proposing a new case schedule under which discovery will be completed.
IT IS SO STIPULATED THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
II. ORDER
THIS MATTER having come on regularly for hearing upon the stipulation of the parties above contained, and the Court being fully advised on the premises, now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. All discovery deadlines in this case shall be stayed until the Court issues a decision on the pending motions to dismiss filed by the City Defendants, (Dkt. 43), and the County Defendants, (Dkt. 67).
2. After the Court has issued a decision on the aforementioned motions to dismiss, the parties shall confer and submit to the Court a stipulated order lifting the stay and proposing a new case schedule under which discovery will be completed.