Pena v. Clark County

W.D. Washington

Pena v. Clark County

DecidedJanuary 18, 2023

Docket3:21-cv-05411

StatusUnknown

This text of Pena v. Clark County (Pena v. Clark County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pena v. Clark County, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ELIAS PENA, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05411-DGE 11 Plaintiffs, MINUTE ORDER 12 v. 13 ISAIAH HUTSON, 14 Defendant. 15

16 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, United States District 17 Judge David G. Estudillo: 18 The parties stipulated motion and proposed order for an extension of discovery and the 19 dispositive deadline is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 40.) Strict adherence to deadlines is crucial for the 20 Court’s case management. “In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts [in the federal system] 21 routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of 22 cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken seriously by the parties, 23 24 1 and the best way to encourage that is to enforce the deadlines.” Wong v. Regents of Univ. of 2 California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 The parties filed their motion on the last day of discovery. The stipulation does not 4 identify who the listed witnesses are, what information they might possess, and why their

5 depositions are necessary. The stipulation also fails to identify when the depositions were 6 requested and when the attorneys received responses regarding the witnesses’ availability. Aside 7 from the general assertion that the parties could not complete depositions “because of pre- 8 existing work, travel commitments, and jury service,” the stipulation does not explain why the 9 parties failed to meet the deadline previously extended by the Court at the parties’ request. 10 There are six Plaintiffs’ attorneys and two attorneys representing Defendant. It remains unclear 11 why these attorneys could not have covered in the case of one attorney’s absence. Good cause to 12 modify the current case schedule and to extend previously agreed to deadlines has not been 13 shown. 14 Therefore, the Court DENIES the Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order (Dkt. No. 40).

15 Dated this 18th day of January 2023. 16 The foregoing Minute Order authorized by THE HONORABLE DAVID G. 17 ESTUDILLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ELIAS PENA, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05411-DGE 11 Plaintiffs, MINUTE ORDER 12 v. 13 ISAIAH HUTSON, 14 Defendant. 15

16 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, United States District 17 Judge David G. Estudillo: 18 The parties stipulated motion and proposed order for an extension of discovery and the 19 dispositive deadline is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 40.) Strict adherence to deadlines is crucial for the 20 Court’s case management. “In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts [in the federal system] 21 routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of 22 cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken seriously by the parties, 23 24 1 and the best way to encourage that is to enforce the deadlines.” Wong v. Regents of Univ. of 2 California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 The parties filed their motion on the last day of discovery. The stipulation does not 4 identify who the listed witnesses are, what information they might possess, and why their

5 depositions are necessary. The stipulation also fails to identify when the depositions were 6 requested and when the attorneys received responses regarding the witnesses’ availability. Aside 7 from the general assertion that the parties could not complete depositions “because of pre- 8 existing work, travel commitments, and jury service,” the stipulation does not explain why the 9 parties failed to meet the deadline previously extended by the Court at the parties’ request. 10 There are six Plaintiffs’ attorneys and two attorneys representing Defendant. It remains unclear 11 why these attorneys could not have covered in the case of one attorney’s absence. Good cause to 12 modify the current case schedule and to extend previously agreed to deadlines has not been 13 shown. 14 Therefore, the Court DENIES the Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order (Dkt. No. 40).

15 Dated this 18th day of January 2023. 16 The foregoing Minute Order authorized by THE HONORABLE DAVID G. 17 ESTUDILLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pena v. Clark County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-clark-county-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack