Troupe v. Washington State Penitentiary et al

Filing 272

ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION - denying 268 Motion for Reconsideration. Troupe v. Brodhead CV-13-5028-EFS and the single remaining Eighth Amendment claim against Office Brodhead is merged into CV-13-5038-EFS. All future filings in either case sh all be filed under Case No. CV-13-5038-EFS unless the Court later directs otherwise. Case No. CV-13-5028-EFS shall be administratively closed. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)**7 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(David Troupe, Prisoner ID: 765714)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 7 No. 13-CV-5028-EFS DAVID TROUPE, Plaintiff, 8 10 ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION v. 9 KENNITH R. BRODHEAD, Defendants. 11 12 No. 13-CV-5038-EFS DAVID TROUPE, Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 KATRINA SUCKOW, BONNIE KLAHN, and THOMAS ROE, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Before the Court are numerous motions by the parties as well as the issue of consolidation. The Court takes each issue in turn. I. Consolidation of Cases Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits a court to “join for trial” or consolidate actions before the Court that “involve a common question of law or fact.” On April 18, 2016, the Court requested briefing by the parties on whether consolidating these two cases was appropriate. The Court believed that given the similar questions of law and fact and ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION - 1 the similar procedural postures, 1 consolidation was appropriate. The Defendants responded and are in 2 favor of consolidation but request a continuance if the Court choses 3 to do so. ECF Nos. 203 & 204. Plaintiff does not oppose consolidation 4 but requests mediation if the Court consolidates. 5 Both of these cases are now past the discovery and summary 6 judgment stages of litigation. Plaintiff in both cases alleges Eighth 7 Amendment 8 Penitentiary. The backgrounds in these two cases are substantially 9 the same. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 42(a), the Court consolidates these two cases finding that both cases 11 have similar questions of law and fact, and that judicial economy and 12 the ends of justice are best served by combining these two cases. The 13 Court 14 deadlines below. sets As 15 violations to new trial by employees and Plaintiff’s pretrial request for of the dates, as mediation, Washington well the as State additional Court is not 16 opposed to the idea. However, the Court will not force the parties to 17 mediate if they do not want to participate. It is clear that the 18 Plaintiff seeks mediation. However, the Court will order mediation 19 only if the Defendants believe it also proper. By no later than May 20 31, 2016, Defendants must file a notice with the Court indicating 21 whether they support referring this case to mediation. 22 II. Motion for Protective Order, Case No. 13-CV-5038, ECF No. 195 23 Plaintiff seeks a protective order in Troupe v. Suckow, 13-CV- 24 5038. ECF No. 195. Plaintiff appears to seek an order requiring 25 either that 1) Ms. Amy Clemmons be forced to remain as the attorney 26 of record in this case or 2) ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION - 2 bar all other attorneys for the 1 Washington State Attorney General’s office from accessing the records 2 in 3 83.2(d)(3) states: “Where there has simply been a change (withdrawal 4 or 5 substitution is not required.” If two attorneys practice in the same 6 law firm, they may substitute in on a case without permission from 7 the Court. Therefore, the Court will not force Ms. Clemmons to remain 8 on this case if the Attorney General’s Office believes it in its best 9 interest to substitute counsel. this matter. addition) of As to counsel Plaintiff’s within the first same request, law firm, Local and Rule order of 10 As to Plaintiff’s privacy concerns, the Court expects that the 11 Attorney General’s Office, and all the attorneys working on this 12 case, will take reasonable measures to protect the medical and mental 13 health records of Plaintiff. However, the Court will not bar certain 14 individuals who work in that office from accessing those records. 15 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 195, is 16 denied. 17 III. Motion for 25 Blank Subpoenas, Case No. 13-CV-5038, ECF No. 212 18 Plaintiff asks for “25 blank subpoenas for witnesses in #13-CV- 19 5038-EFS July 18, 2016 trial” without explanation or clarification. 20 The Court assumes that this request is in response to the Court’s 21 previous Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Trial Witnesses, ECF No. 202. As 22 the 23 witnesses, “he must first file a motion with the Court clearly and 24 specifically identifying 1) the first and last name of each witness 25 for whom he seeks the issuance of a trial subpoena, and 2) the 26 witness’s Court stated address in at that which order, if service ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION - 3 Plaintiff will be wants to effected.” subpoena A motion 1 requesting 25 blank subpoenas, more than is currently on his witness 2 list, without explanation or clarification, does not suffice. Additionally, 3 Plaintiff has failed to abide by the Court’s 4 scheduling order in that his witness list, ECF No. 214, fails to 5 “include a brief description of the witness, a brief summary of the 6 witness' anticipated testimony, whether the witness will be called as 7 an expert, and any known trial date/time conflicts that witness has.” 8 ECF No. 173. 9 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for 25 Blank Subpoenas, 10 ECF No. 212, is denied. If Plaintiff wants to subpoena witnesses for 11 trial, 12 stating what he expects each witness to testify to and why that 13 testimony is relevant to the narrow Eighth Amendment claims in these 14 cases. The Court will then send the subpoenas for those witnesses and 15 will not permit him to subpoena witnesses that have not been approved 16 by the Court. New deadlines for witness lists are delineated below. 17 IV. he must file a list of witnesses with the Court clearly Motion to Approve a Subpoena, Case No. 13-CV-5038, ECF No. 215 Plaintiff asks the Court to approve a discovery subpoena in 18 19 Troupe v. Suckow, 13-CV-5038. 20 Plaintiff that discovery in these cases has ended. All that remains 21 for both of these cases is to prepare for trial using the discovery 22 already obtained. No further discovery subpoenas will be approved. 23 Only trial subpoenas will be issued and only after the requirements 24 in the Court’s orders have been met. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to 25 Approve Subpoena, ECF No. 215, is denied. 26 / ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION - 4 ECF No. 215. The Court reminds 1 V. Motion for Reconsideration, Case No. 13-CV-5028, ECF No. 268 2 Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order Granting in 3 Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 4 No. 268. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Mr. Christopher Bowman 5 should not be dismissed from this case. Plaintiff, however, provides 6 no new evidence or case law supporting his proposition. He simply 7 argues that Mr. Bowman retaliated against him in a different way. As 8 the 9 essential element of his First Amendment retaliation claim against 10 Mr. Bowman and therefore summary judgment is appropriate. Therefore, 11 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Case No. 13-CV-5028, ECF No. 12 268, is denied. 13 VI. 14 Court stated in its order, Plaintiff has failed to show an Conclusion & Deadlines The parties must carefully read the Court’s prior Scheduling 15 Order, 16 superseded by the deadlines below. The following deadlines apply to 17 the single consolidated remaining case: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ECF No. 173, and abide by Witness and Exhibit lists: Lists filed and served: Objections filed and served: Deposition Designations: Designated Transcripts served: Cross-Designations served: Objections filed and served: All motions in limine filed Joint Proposed Pretrial Order filed and emailed to the Court Confer with Courtroom Deputy regarding JERS PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 26 ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION - 5 its requirements that are September 1, 2016 September 9, 2016 August 12, 2016 August 19, 2016 August 26, 2016 September 1, 2016 September 23, 2016 1 Week Before Pretrial October 4, 2016 1:30 P.M. - Richland not 1 4 Trial briefs, jury instructions, verdict forms, requested voir dire, and list of exhibits admitted without objection, filed and emailed to the Court Mediation, if any, must be completed by 5 JURY TRIAL 2 3 October 10, 2016 90 Days Before Trial October 24, 2016 9:30 A.M. - Richland 6 The parties do not need to refile the motions in limine they 7 8 have 9 pretrial conference. If the parties wish to file additional motions 10 in limine, specific to the claim against Officer Brodhead, which are 11 being consolidated into this case, they must do so by the deadlines 12 listed above. 13 14 already 1. 2. 3. heard at the October 4, 2016 Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, Case No. 13-CV- Plaintiff's Motion for 25 Blank Subpoenas, Case No. 13-CV- Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve a Subpoena, Case No. 13-CV5038, ECF No. 215, is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Case No. 13-CV- and the single 5028, ECF No. 268, is DENIED. 21 22 be 5038, ECF No. 212, is DENIED. 19 20 will 5038, ECF No. 195, is DENIED. 17 18 Those Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 16 filed. 5. Troupe v. Brodhead, 4:13-CV-5028-EFS, 23 remaining Eighth Amendment claim against Officer Brodhead 24 is merged into this case. 25 26 6. All future filings in either case shall be filed under Case Number 4:13-CV-5038-EFS, ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION - 6 unless the Court later directs 1 otherwise. 2 administratively closed. 3 7. Case Number 4:13-CV-5028-EFS The Caption is hereby AMENDED. shall be All papers filed in this 4 action shall hereinafter use the caption "DAVID TROUPE, 5 Plaintiff, 6 KLAHN, 7 docket number, A4:13-CV-5038-EFS.@ 8 8. All v. and KENNITH THOMAS parties in BROADHEAD, ROE, both KATRINA Defendants," cases are to and SUCKOW, shall file all BONNIE bear the documents 9 pursuant to the deadlines set forth above and subject to 10 the requirements set forth in the Court’s December 8, 2015 11 Amended Scheduling Order, ECF No. 173. 12 9. Defendants must file a notice with the Court by May 31, 13 2016, 14 appropriate in this matter. 15 10. stating whether or not they believe mediation is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, ECF No. 196, and Defendants’ 16 Motion in Limine, ECF No. 181, are RESET to be heard at the 17 October 4, 2016 pretrial conference. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel and Mr. Troupe. DATED this 17th day of May 2016. 21 22 s/Edward F. Shea EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2013\5028.5038.TROUPE.motions.lc2.docx ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION - 7

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?