Tapia v. NaphCare Inc
This text of Tapia v. NaphCare Inc (Tapia v. NaphCare Inc) 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.
Opinion
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 JAVIER TAPIA, NO. 2:22-cv-01141-TL 9 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY 10 DISCOVERY PENDING RULINGS v. ON DEFENDANTS’ 12(b)(6) 11 MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND NAPHCARE, INC. AND PIERCE COUNTY, ORDER 12 Defendants. NOTED FOR CONSIDERATION: 13 FEBRUARY 8, 2023
14 I. STIPULATION 15 No scheduling order has yet been issued in this case. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of 16 caution, and pursuant to this Court’s broad discretion over discovery matters, Plaintiff Javier Tapia, 17 Defendant NaphCare, Inc., and Defendant Pierce County (“Parties”), respectfully and jointly move 18 the Court for entry of an order staying discovery until the Court issues its rulings on Defendants’ 19 pending CR 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. See Dorian v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 2:22-cv- 20 00269, 2022 WL 3155369, *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 8, 2022) (“District courts have broad discretion 21 to stay discovery pending the resolution of potentially dispositive motions.”); Taylor v. 22 McDonough, No. 20-5471 RJB, 2021 WL 9649333 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2021) (same). 23 The Parties filed their Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan (“JSR”) on October 24 13, 2022. (Dkt. No. 16). Paragraph 5(B) of the JSR states: 25 Defendants’ forthcoming motions to dismiss. . . . If no ruling occurs within 60 days 2 of the noting date of the anticipated motions to dismiss, the Parties will meet and confer to determine whether an additional stay is necessary. 3 Id. Defendant NaphCare, Inc. filed its motion to dismiss on October 20, 2022, with a noting date of 4 November 11, 2022. (Dkt. No. 19). Defendant Pierce County filed its motion to dismiss on October 5 21, 2022, with a noting date of December 2, 2022. (Dkt. No. 21). The court has not issued a ruling 6 on either motion and sixty days have lapsed since the latest noting date. Accordingly, and pursuant 7 to the agreement set forth in the JSR, all Parties met and conferred via email to discuss whether an 8 additional stay of discovery is warranted. This stipulation follows. 9 Counsel for the Parties have been working cooperatively, have conferred, and agree that 10 good cause exists to stay discovery further. The Parties wish to ensure there is ample time to 11 complete needed discovery without having to come to this Court multiple times seeking a 12 continuance. To save the Court’s and the Parties’ resources during the pendency of the motions, the 13 Parties stipulate that discovery should be stayed and the schedule set after the Court issues its ruling 14 on the pending dispositive motions. 15 IT IS SO STIPULATED THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 16 DATED: February 8, 2023 17 I certify that this memorandum contains 382 words, in compliance with the Local Civil 18 Rules. 19 By: s/ Corinne Sebren By: s/Kristal M. Cowger Ryan D. Dreveskracht, WSBA No. 42593 Kristal M. Cowger, WSBA No. 43079 20 Corinne Sebren, WSBA No. 58777 Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendant Pierce County 21 GALANDA BROADMAN PLLC 930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 946 P.O. Box 15146 Seattle, WA 98115 Tacoma, WA 98402-2171 22 (206) 557-7509 (253) 798-4265 Email: ryan@galandabroadman.com Email: kristal.cowger@piercecountywa.gov 23 Email: corinne@galandabroadman.com
25 David Perez, WSBA No. 43959 2 Ian D. Rogers, WSBA No. 46584 Dane A. Westermeyer, WSBA No. 49934 3 Stephanie D. Olson, WSBA No. 50100 Attorneys for Defendant NaphCare, Inc. 4 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 5 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 359-8000 6 E-mail: dperez@perkinscoie.com E-mail: irogers@perkinscoie.com 7 E-mail: dwestermeyer@perkinscoie.com E-mail: solson@perkinscoie.com 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 This matter came before the Court upon stipulation of the Parties above. Having read and
3 considered all related materials, and being fully informed, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 4 1. All discovery deadlines in this case shall be STAYED until the Court issues a decision 5 on the pending motions to dismiss filed by Defendant NaphCare, Inc., (Dkt. No. 19), 6 and Defendant Pierce County, (Dkt. No. 21). 7 2. The Parties are further ordered to meet and confer to file an updated Joint Status 8 Report within seven (7) days of the Court’s ruling on the aforementioned motions 9 to dismiss. 10 Dated this 9th day of February 2023. 11 A
12 Tana Lin United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tapia v. NaphCare Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tapia-v-naphcare-inc-wawd-2023.