Hernandez v. City of Vancouver

Full title: ROLANDO HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VANCOUVER and MARK TANNINEN…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma

Date published: Feb 13, 2009

Case No. C04-5539 FDB (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. C04-5539 FDB.

February 13, 2009

ORDER GRANTING STAY OF ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AND STAYING CASE PENDING CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL

FRANKLIN BURGESS, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for motion for relief from deadline and stay of order compelling discovery pending consideration of appeal and Defendants cross-motion for stay of proceedings pending appeal. After reviewing all materials submitted by the parties and relied upon for authority, the Court is fully informed and hereby grants Plaintiff's motion and stays the Order of January 5, 2009 pending the appeal. The Court further vacates all current deadlines and the May 26, 2009 trial date and stays all proceedings in this case until the appeal is resolved.

On January 5, 2009, this Court entered an Order granting Defendants' motion to compel production, finding that Plaintiff had waived the attorney client privilege with his former attorney in this matter. Plaintiff has filed an interlocutory appeal of the January 5, 2009. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292; In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 479 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9^th Cir. 2007). When proper notice of appeal has been timely filed general rule is that jurisdiction over any matters involved in the appeal is immediately transferred from the district court to the Court of Appeal and district court is divested of authority to proceed further with respect to such matters, except in aid of the appeal. Matter of Thorp, 655 F.2d 997, 998 (9^th Cir. 1981).

In aid of the appeal, the Court finds it appropriate to issue a stay of its January 5, 2009 Order compelling production of attorney-client materials. Because judicial economy favors deciding all issues in one trial, the Court finds it appropriate to vacate all current deadlines and the May 26, 2009 trial date and stay all proceedings pending the appeal.

ACCORDINGLY;

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's motion for relief from deadline and for stay [Dkt. # 110 and # 98] is GRANTED. The Court's Order Compelling Production [Dkt. # 97] is stayed during the pendency of appeal.

2. Defendants' cross-motion for stay of case pending appeal [Dkt. # 116] is GRANTED. All current deadlines and the trial date are vacated. The proceedings in this case are stayed pending appeal.