Strickland v. Balderama

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided February 11, 2025·No. 3:24-cv-05487·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05487-JCC-BAT v. PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER MIGUEL BALDERAMA, et al., Defendant.

Plaintiff Joshua Wayne Strickland proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. By order dated February 10, 2025, the Court dismissed all claims in the action except the claims against Defendant Johnathan Slothower related to the alleged failure to provide proper treatment and supplies for Plaintiff’s incontinence. Dkt. 33. Defendant Slothower has not yet filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint. The Court therefore ORDERS: The remaining Defendant, Johnathan Slothower, is directed to file an answer to the complaint with respect to the remaining claims on or before March 4, 2025. Discovery is the process by which one party asks another party to provide relevant information about the case. A party should not file discovery requests or discovery materials with the court unless the party is moving to compel, seeking a protective order, or is otherwise supporting a motion. A party seeking discovery must serve a discovery request on the other

party. There are several ways to ask for discovery including: depositions in which one party asks another person questions about the lawsuit; interrogatories in which written questions are served on another party; and requests for production in which a written request to provide documents relevant to the lawsuit is served on another party. See Rules 30, 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All discovery in this case must be completed by June 2, 2025. This includes serving responses to interrogatory questions and requests for production, and the completion of all depositions. Responses to interrogatory questions and requests for production must be served not later than 30 days after service of the discovery requests. The serving party, therefore, must serve his/her discovery requests by May 1, 2025, so that the responding party can answer by the

discovery cut-off. See Rules 33(b) and 34(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests must be served directly on the opposing party’s counsel by mail. Any motion to compel discovery shall be filed not later than June 17, 2025. From time-to- time disputes over whether discovery has been properly provided arise. If a discovery dispute arises, a party must fulfill the Court’s meet and confer requirements before filing a motion to compel discovery. See Local Rule 37. The local rule requires the party seeking discovery to make a good faith effort to confer with the opposing party either through a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conference. Any motion to compel discovery must include a written certification that the moving party has in good faith effort either met and conferred or attempted to meet and confer. A motion to compel that lacks such a certification will be summarily denied. The motion to compel must: (1) list the matters on which the parties were unable to agree; (2) identify the nature and relevance of the documents and materials sought; (3) list the reason(s)

why the mandatory initial disclosures were inadequate; and, (4) explain why the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. A motion is a formal request that asks the Court to take certain action. All argument in support of the motion must be set forth in the motion itself and not in a separate document. See Local Rule CR 7(b)(1). Each motion, together with a proposed order, must be served on the opposing party so that the opposing party has an opportunity to respond. In addition, each

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

Strickland v. Balderama, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Strickland v. Balderama (Strickland v. Balderama) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related