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.

Manning v. King County

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

May 20, 2019

SAMUEL D. MANNING, Plaintiff,
v.
KING COUNTY, Defendant.

          PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

          MICHELLE L. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant has filed an answer to Plaintiff's amended complaint. (Dkt. # 10.) Accordingly, the Court hereby establishes the following pretrial schedule:

         (1) Discovery

         All discovery shall be completed by August 19, 2019. Service of responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions, and the taking of depositions, shall be completed by this date. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that responses to discovery requests be served within thirty (30) days after service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A), 36(a)(3). The serving party, therefore, must serve his/her discovery requests at least thirty (30) days before the deadline in order to allow the other party time to answer.

         (2) Dispositive Motions

         Any dispositive motion and supporting affidavits, declarations, or other evidence shall be filed and served on or before September 19, 2019. Pursuant to LCR 7(b), any argument being offered in support of a motion shall be submitted as a part of the motion itself and not in a separate document. The motion shall include in its caption (immediately below the title of the motion) a designation of the date the motion is to be noted for consideration upon the Court's motion calendar. Dispositive motions shall be noted for consideration on a date no earlier than the fourth Friday following filing and service of the motion. LCR 7(d)(3).

         All briefs and supporting evidence in opposition to any motion shall be filed and served pursuant to the requirements of Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LCR 7. The party making a motion may file and serve a reply to the opposing party's brief. Any reply brief shall also be filed and served pursuant to the requirements of Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LCR 7.

         Defendants are reminded that they MUST serve a Rand notice, in a separate document, concurrently with motions for summary judgment so that pro se prisoner plaintiffs will have fair, timely, and adequate notice of what is required of them in order to oppose such motions. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 941 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit has set forth model language for such notices:

A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact - that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). Defendants who fail to file and serve the required Rand notice on the Plaintiff may have their motion stricken from the Court's calendar with leave to re-file.

         (3) Joint Pretrial Statement

         The parties are advised that a due date for filing a Joint Pretrial Statement may be established at a later date pending the outcome of any dispositive motions.

         (4) Proof of ...


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.