United States District Court, W.D. Washington
Camille Fisher, WSBA #41809,Laura C. Hill, WSBA #49229
Perkins Coie LLP Laura C. Hill, WSBA #49229 Perkins Coie LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert John Preston
Mikolaj T. Tempski, WSBA #42896 ,Marc O. Bides, WSBA # 40496
Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney – Civil Division,
Attorneys for Defendant Ryan Boyer
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER LIMITING DISCOVERY AND AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE
Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge
Robert Preston and Defendant Ryan Boyer (collectively, the
“Parties”) stipulate and agree as follows:
this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Mr. Preston asserts claims
for violation of his constitutional rights in connection with
his arrest by Snohomish County Sheriff’s Deputy Boyer.
Deputy Boyer has asserted a qualified immunity defense, among
other defenses. Dkt. 21.
Preston was originally proceeding pro se, but on April 5,
2017, the Court granted Mr. Preston’s motion to appoint
counsel. Dkt. 58.
Preston’s appointed counsel appeared in the case on
April 24, 2017. Dkt. 61.
May 1, 2017, the Court entered an Amended Pretrial Scheduling
Order setting a discovery cutoff of September 8, 2017, and a
dispositive motion deadline of October 6, 2017. Dkt. 62.
Consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s
pronouncement that qualified immunity issues should be
resolved at the “earliest possible stage of a
litigation” and that any needed discovery “should
be tailored specifically to the question of [the
defendant’s] qualified immunity” defense, see
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 668 & n.6
(1987), the Parties agree that discovery should be limited at
this stage of the case to the issue of qualified immunity,
with the understanding that if this matter survives summary
judgment on that issue, both fact and expert discovery will
be reopened to all other issues.
Parties therefore request an order regarding the scope of
discovery consistent with this understanding.
Parties have worked diligently to meet the scheduling
order’s deadlines, but they request modification of the
existing deadlines. Due to the constraints of communicating
with a party who is currently incarcerated in Eastern
Washington, and because of scheduling conflicts for fact
witnesses, expert witnesses, and counsel, the Parties
stipulate to and request modification of the current
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
Parties request that the Court modify the current discovery