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.

Hayes v. State, Department of Corrections

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

November 28, 2017

DONALD C HAYES, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge.

         The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff Donald C. Hayes, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this lawsuit on February 8, 2016. Dkt. 1. Presently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's “Motion for Extension of Time (Re: Discovery)” and “Motion for Extended Brief.” Dkt. 214, 223. After review of the record, the Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 214) is denied and the Motion for Extended Brief (Dkt. 223) is granted. The Court also directs the Clerk to re-note several Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 209, 211, 217, 232) to December 15, 2017.

         I. Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 214)

         In the Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to conduct discovery because he must acquire documents from Defendant Duong to survive summary judgment. Dkt. 214. On July 7, 2016, the Court entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order (“Order”). Dkt. 38. The Order required all discovery to be completed by January 9, 2017. Id. Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on April 13, 2017. See Dkt. 140. As the previous pretrial scheduling deadlines expired prior to Plaintiff filing the Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court extended the discovery deadline to September 8, 2017. Dkt. 149. On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff moved for an extension of the discovery period. Dkt. 156. The Court granted the request, and the discovery deadline was extended to October 27, 2017. Dkt. 219. Plaintiff now moves for an additional extension of time to complete discovery. Dkt. 214. Defendants filed Responses requesting the Motion for Extension of Time be denied. Dkt. 221, 222.

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified for good cause and with the judge's consent. Plaintiff requests the deadlines in this case be extended so he can conduct additional discovery and allow Defendants to produce the requested discovery. See Dkt. 214. In this case, discovery began on July 7, 2016. Dkt. 38. The Court, sua sponte, extended the discovery deadline to September 8, 2017. Dkt. 149. The Court also granted Plaintiff an extension of time, extending the discovery deadline to October 27, 2017. Dkt. 190. Thus, Plaintiff has had over 15 months to conduct discovery in this case. Plaintiff does not explain why he did not serve additional discovery during the discovery period or attempt to confer with Defendants' counsel regarding discovery disputes. See Dkt. 214. Further, Defendant Duong asserts Plaintiff requested specific documents related to Defendant Duong's employment with the Department of Corrections, but Defendant Duong was not in possession of the requested documents. Dkt. 222. After reviewing the Motion for Extension of Time, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for an extension of time to complete discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 214) is denied.

         II. Motion for Extended Brief (Dkt. 223)

         On October 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Plaintiff's ADA Claims. Dkt. 211. The Motion for Summary Judgment was 25 pages. Id. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(e)(3), motions for summary judgment shall not exceed twenty-four pages. Plaintiff filed the Motion for Extended Brief requesting leave of the Court to file the over-length Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 223. Defendants Smith, Suiter, Reyes, and the Department of Corrections filed a Response stating they do not oppose the over-length brief. Dkt. 224. Defendant Duong did not file a response. After considering the relevant record, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Extended Brief (Dkt. 223). The Court will consider the twenty-five page brief when ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

         III. Re-noting Motions for Summary Judgment

         Defendant Duong filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 20, 2017, which is noted for the Court's consideration on December 1, 2017. Dkt. 209, 233. Plaintiff Donald C. Hayes filed Motions for Summary Judgment on October 26, 2017, October 31, 2017, and November 9, 2017, which are noted for the Court's consideration on December 1, 2017 and December 8, 2017. Dkt. 211, 217, 232, 233.[1] Defendants Smith, Suiter, Reyes, and the Department of Corrections filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on November 17, 2017, which is noted for the Court's consideration on December 15, 2017. Dkt. 236.

         The Court directs the Clerk to re-note Defendant Duong's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 209) and Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 211, 217, 232) for December 15, 2017, so the five Motions for Summary Judgment can be considered simultaneously. See Local Civil Rule 7(k) (“[e]ven if the motion and cross motion are noted for different days, the court will typically consider them together”).

         IV. Conclusion

         For the above stated reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 214) and grants Plaintiff's Motion for Extended Brief (Dkt. 223). The Court also directs the Clerk to re-note the pending Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 209, 211, 217, 232) for December 15, 2017.

---------


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.