Deanna R. Devries-Macdougle v. Skagit County, a municipal corporation, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 DEANNA R. DEVRIES-MACDOUGLE, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00103-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 SKAGIT COUNTY, a municipal corporation, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 This matter is before the Court on its own motion. 17 The Court acknowledges receipt of Plaintiff’s “Status Report and Response to Order 18 Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement.” Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff 19 asks the Court to accept this filing “as Plaintiff’s good-faith compliance with Paragraph 19 of the 20 Court’s Scheduling Order[.]” Id. ¶ 27. 21 As Plaintiff points out, the Court’s Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status 22 Report, and Early Settlement provides: 23 If, on the due date of the Report, all Defendant(s) or 24 Respondent(s) have not been served (or waived service), Counsel 1 for Plaintiff(s) or Petitioner(s) shall advise the Court when service 2 will be effected, why it was not made earlier, and shall provide a proposed schedule for the required FRCP 26(f) conference and 3 FRCP 26(a) initial disclosures. 4 Dkt. No. 12 ¶ 19. 5 The joint status report deadline set by the Court is April 17, 2026. At this time, Plaintiff’s 6 status report is premature, as the deadline remains two weeks away. Amended summonses have 7 been issued (Dkt. No. 16), and Plaintiff indicates her intention to “promptly effect service upon 8 all named Defendants . . . .” Dkt. No. 15 ¶ 17. Moreover, all named Defendants already have 9 notice of this action: Attorney Frederick A. Haist appeared on behalf of all Defendants named in 10 the original complaint on January 15, 2026 (Dkt. No. 4), and the only new defendant named in 11 the Amended Complaint is Frederick A. Haist (see Dkt. No. 13). Accordingly, a possibility 12 remains that the parties may meet the deadline the Court has set. If not, Plaintiff may refile an 13 updated status report on the due date.1 14 Finally, the Court notes that the status report Plaintiff submitted includes multiple 15 concerning misstatements of legal authority. In asserting “Courts have consistently held that 16 Rule 26(f) obligations do not attach until defendants have been properly served and have entered 17 an appearance,” Plaintiff cites two apparently irrelevant cases. See Dkt. No. 15 ¶ 11.2 Plaintiff 18 19 1 The Court recognizes the logistical challenges such a precise deadline might pose for a litigant who is not 20 participating in e-filing. Should Plaintiff opt to submit a status report by mail, the Court will consider any filing postmarked the week beginning April 13, 2026, regardless of when it arrives, to be timely filed but not premature. 21 2 Lindell v. Houser, 442 f.3d 1033, 1035 (7th Cir. 2006) affirms a grant of summary judgment on a constitutional issue. The opinion includes substantive rulings on Eighth Amendment questions and also addresses the plaintiff’s entitlement to a court-appointed lawyer. The Court can discern no basis for Plaintiff’s assertion that this case 22 “note[s] that discovery obligations arise only after a defendant is properly before the court.” Similarly, Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, 46 F. 3d 1298, 1310 (3d Cir. 1995) does not, as Plaintiff asserts, “discuss[] the interplay 23 between service and discovery of process.” See Dkt. No. 15 ¶ 11. While that opinion does address both a service of process deadline, and separately, a discovery dispute, those issues involve different defendants and there is no 24 “interplay” between them. The cited page recounts the factual background of a discovery dispute and has no relevance to service of process at all. See 46 F. 3d at 1310 (3d Cir. 1995) 1 professes to acknowledge her duties under Rule 11 (see Dkt. No. 8 at 2), and the Court reminds 2 her of those duties now. See Rule 11(b). 3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 4 (1) Plaintiff’s request for the Court to consider her obligations under the scheduling

5 order fulfilled is DENIED. 6 (2) Plaintiff’s request that the Court to hold currently pending deadlines in abeyance 7 is DENIED. Any renewed request to extend these deadlines SHALL propose specific 8 dates for any proposed deadlines. 9 (3) Plaintiff is AVISED that any future citations to legal authority are expected to be 10 made with care, be accurate to the best of her ability, and not misrepresent the 11 authorities she cites. 12 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2026. 13 A

14 Tana Lin United States District Judge 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24