From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Pierce County

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
Feb 21, 2006
Case No. C05-5140 RBL (W.D. Wash. Feb. 21, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. C05-5140 RBL.

February 21, 2006


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE


THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Witness and for Leave to Proceed with Medical Discovery [Dkt. #18].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

This is a civil rights case. Plaintiff generally alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment by the Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel, and when she complained about it and other discriminatory practices engaged in by the defendant, she was retaliated against and constructively discharged. Defendants have filed the instant motion to exclude plaintiff's expert witness, Forensic Economist Robert Moss, on the grounds of late disclosure, and also seek further discovery of a non-disclosed behavioral medical specialist whom the defendant became aware of on January 17, 2006 upon review of plaintiff's medical records. The defendant also seeks leave to conduct a psychiatric IME.

Plaintiff has not responded to this motion which was properly noted for February 10, 2006. The local rules of this Court provide that "[i]f a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit." CR 7(b)(2), Local Rules, W.D. Wash. Because of the potential impact on plaintiff's case caused by the exclusion of an expert damages witness, and because of the potential of subjecting plaintiff to a psychiatric IME, this Court is hesitant to rule on defendant's motion without the benefit of plaintiff's input. Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff respond to defendant's motion on or before February 27, 2006. The Court will re-note the motion [Dkt. #18] for March 3, 2006. The failure of plaintiff to respond will result in the granting of defendant's motion.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Pierce County

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
Feb 21, 2006
Case No. C05-5140 RBL (W.D. Wash. Feb. 21, 2006)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Pierce County

Case Details

Full title:NORMA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY, a municipal corporation and…

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

Date published: Feb 21, 2006

Citations

Case No. C05-5140 RBL (W.D. Wash. Feb. 21, 2006)