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.

Tillisy v. Washington State Department of Corrections

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

October 22, 2019

MUHAMMED TILLISY, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION

          J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to compel and for an extension of the time in which to respond to summary judgment. See Dkt. 78. Because plaintiff's request for production of documents is moot, his motion to compel is denied. His motion for an extension is granted, although the noting date for the summary judgment motion is extended by 30, rather than 60, days.

         BACKGROUND

         Defendants filed a summary judgment motion in August 2019. See Dkt. 49. On August 8, plaintiff requested an extension, stating, among other things, that he would be without his property during a transfer between institutions. See Dkt. 64, at 1; Dkt. 73, at 1.

         The Court granted plaintiff's request for an extension and re-noted the summary judgment motion for October 25, 2019. See Dkt. 75. On September 23, plaintiff again requested an extension. See Dkt. 78. In his second extension request, plaintiff states that he received “the remainder of his property” on September 11, 2019. See Dkt. 78, at 1; see also Dkt. 64. Plaintiff further states that he has been unable to obtain discovery from defendants, who he claims have been delaying responding to his requests. Dkt. 78, at 2.

         Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel production of documents-specifically, “complete medical record[s], ” “complete central file, ” “all kiosk messages, ” “emails pertaining to Tillisy. M . . . for medical/ADA/dis[ci]plenary, ” “complete unredacted investigation report pertaining to WAC 60.605.740, ” and “records regarding prohibited placement due to above said investigation.” See Dkt. 77, at 1-2. In a September 20, 2019 affidavit, plaintiff states that he requested a discovery conference with defense counsel but that she failed to participate in two scheduled conference calls, “with no date [re]scheduled.” Dkt. 77, at 9. Plaintiff alleges that this “is a delay tactic[.]” Dkt. 77, at 10.

         Defendants did not respond to the extension motion. See Dkt. In response to the motion to compel, defense counsel states that she was unable to attend the scheduled conferences because she was ill and that after plaintiff wrote his affidavit, she rescheduled. See Dkt. 82, at 2. She states that she met with plaintiff and discussed resolution of discovery issues on September 26, 2019. Dkt. 82, at 2. Defendants accordingly request that the Court deny as premature plaintiff's motion to compel. See Dkt. 81.

         Plaintiff has not filed a reply in support of his motion to compel. See Dkt. The motion to compel and motion for an extension are ripe for consideration.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Motion to Compel

         As set forth above, plaintiff filed his motion to compel-which was based on his claim that defense counsel had obfuscated his attempts to meet and confer-on September 23, 2019 and relied on his affidavit about events leading up to September 20, 2019. See Dkt. 77. However, defendants' response included defense counsel's declaration that she discussed discovery issues with plaintiff on September 26, 2019. See Dkt. 82. Attached to defense counsel's declaration is a letter in which she memorializes the meeting, states that she will provide a total of 100 pages of documents free of charge to plaintiff and a list of documents for plaintiff to choose from, and requesting that upon receipt of the list, plaintiff identify which documents he wishes to receive. See Dkt. 82-1, at 5.

         As such, the Court finds that plaintiff's request for production of documents is moot. The Court therefore denies the motion to compel.

         II. Motion for an Extension

         Plaintiff's request for a 60-day extension-“or [whatever] amount of time [is] deemed appropriate by the Court”-to respond to summary judgment is based on his claim that defendants refused to produce certain documents. See Dkt. 28, at 1. As noted above, the parties since met regarding the issue, ...


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.