Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Preston v. Boyer

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

August 29, 2017

Robert John Preston, Plaintiff,
v.
Ryan Boyer, Defendant.

          J. 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

          Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff Robert Preston and Defendant Ryan Boyer (collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate and agree as follows:

         1. In 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. Dkt. 10.

         2. Deputy Boyer has asserted a qualified immunity defense, among other defenses. Dkt. 21.

         3. Mr. Preston was originally proceeding pro se, but on April 5, 2017, the Court granted Mr. Preston’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 58.

         4. Mr. Preston’s appointed counsel appeared in the case on April 24, 2017. Dkt. 61.

         5. On 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.

         6. 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.

         7. The Parties therefore request an order regarding the scope of discovery consistent with this understanding.

         8. The 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.

         9. The Parties request that the Court modify the current discovery ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.