Zahn v. Flathead County

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

AMANDA L. ZAHN, CV 23–65–M–DLC

Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER

FLATHEAD COUNTY; JEFFREY J. PERRY; TRAVIS SMITH; and DOES I–X,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Amanda L. Zahn’s unopposed motion for a status conference. (Doc. 45.) The motion requests a status conference regarding two motions: Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (Doc. 31), which has been fully briefed for three months, and Defendants’ motion to preclude non-disclosed expert testimony (Doc. 37), which has been fully briefed for less than two months. (Doc. 45 at 2.) “Federal courts have inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on their dockets with economy of time and effort for themselves, for counsel, and for litigants.” Sarkar v. Garland, 39 F.4th 611, 617 (9th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). This Court also has “broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.” Avila v. Willits Env’t Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). With this in mind, the Court finds that a status conference is unnecessary at this time. If the parties wish to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on these pending motions, the parties may file a joint motion requesting such relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. 45) is DENIED. DATED this 4th day of April, 2025.

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge United States District Court