United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Motion to Compel
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.
such, the Court finds that plaintiff's request for
production of documents is moot. The Court therefore denies
the motion to compel.
Motion for an Extension
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