Hazelquist v. City of Ritzville et al

Filing 63

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DISCOVERY. Plaintiffs Motion for Discovery ECF No. 58 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration ECF No. 59 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

HEIDI HAZELQUIST,
NO: 2:14-CV-0073-TOR
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY

v.
CITY OF RITZVILLE, OFFICER
STEPHENS, OFFICER KLEWIN,
PAT HULL and WASHINGTON
STATE PATROL,

12
Defendants.
13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 58) and

15

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 59). These motions were

16

submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the

17

briefing and the record and files herein, and is fully informed.

18
19
20

BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Heidi Hazelquist was granted in forma pauperis status and
filed a complaint on March 28, 2014. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff asserts that after a

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ~ 1

1

traffic stop, she was falsely arrested and unlawfully imprisoned. When she was

2

released, she claims that she was picked up by the police and restrained in a mental

3

health facility against her will. She asserts that she was denied liberty, unlawfully

4

imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted, defamed, and assaulted.

5

On December 12, 2012, this Court held a telephonic scheduling conference

6

with the parties. ECF No. 55. The parties filed a joint status certificate and

7

discovery plan pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) before the

8

conference; however, Plaintiff specifically reserved the opportunity to discuss

9

expediting the proposed deadlines at the conference, ECF No. 46 at 3, which

10

arguments this Court heard and considered. This Court issued its Jury Trial

11

Scheduling Order following the conference. ECF No. 56.

12
13

In the motions presently before this Court, Plaintiff moves the Court to
compel certain discovery and reconsider its scheduling order. ECF Nos. 58, 59.

14
15
16

DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Discovery
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as this Court’s Jury Trial

17

Scheduling Order, govern discovery in this matter. See ECF No. 56 at 3-7.

18

Pursuant to Rule 26, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged

19

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

20

In general,

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ~ 2

1
2
3
4
5

[a] party may serve on any other party a request, within the scope of
Rule 26(b) to produce and permit the requesting party or its
representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in
the responding party’s possession, custody, or control [such as] any
designated documents or electronically stored information—including
writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings,
images, and other data or data compilations—stored in any medium
from which information can be obtained either directly or, if
necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably
usable form….

6
7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A). A request for the production of the above items must

8

then comport with the procedural requirements of Rule 34(b), such as its

9

requirement that a requesting party describe with “reasonable particularity each

10

item or category of items to be inspected.” Id. at 34(b)(1)(A). The party to whom

11

the request is made must then respond within 30 days, either permitting or

12

objecting to the discovery request. Id. at 34(b)(2). Unless the discovery sought is

13

later found to be protected or privileged, the Court may, if need be, compel its

14

production. See ECF No. 26(c)(2).

15

Here, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is premature. Plaintiff requests

16

the following items: (1) “Radio Dispatch, Voice wsp Ritzville Adams county;” (2)

17

“transcripts Sep 5 2011 to 5pm [Sep] 06,2011;” (3) “Details from the Adams

18

county Sheriffs office re Stephan banishment;” (4) “Records . . . about Stephan

19

rolling and totaling squad car in 2009;” and (5) “WSP 1229.” ECF No. 58 at 3.

20

Although not entirely clear from Plaintiff’s Motion, it appears Plaintiff has not yet

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ~ 3

1

requested this discovery from Defendants. As detailed above, Plaintiff may

2

request, with “reasonable particularity,” nonprivileged and relevant items from

3

Defendants in conformance with Rule 34’s requirements and this Court’s

4

Scheduling Order. Defendants will then have opportunity to respond or object to

5

Plaintiff’s requests. This Court need not compel any discovery at this time.

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 58) is DENIED.

7

B. Motion for Reconsideration

8

After a court has established the scheduling order, Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 16 controls any modification of that order. Rule 16(b) provides that “[a]

10

schedule [pursuant to a Rule 16(b)(1) scheduling order] may be modified only for

11

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Thus, to

12

satisfy the legal standard under Rule 16(b), a plaintiff must show “good cause” for

13

why the scheduling order should be amended. Id. The district court, in

14

supervising the pretrial phase of litigation and deciding the preclusive effect of a

15

pretrial order, has “broad discretion.” C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified

16

School Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011).

17

Here, Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its Scheduling Order.

18

Specifically, Plaintiff requests that this Court modify the trial date from November

19

16, 2015, to June 1, 2015. ECF No. 59 at 1. Although the Court acknowledges

20

Plaintiff’s interest in expediting the proceedings, it also must balance Defendants’

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ~ 4

1

right to have sufficient time to prepare their defense. Considering that this Court

2

granted Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline to amend pleadings to March 2,

3

2015, a June trial would severely prejudice Defendants. Accordingly, because

4

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to modify the scheduling order, her

5

Motion (ECF No. 59) is DENIED.

6

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 58) is DENIED.

8

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 59) is DENIED.

9

The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide

10
11

copies to the parties.
DATED January 26, 2015.

12
13
14

THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ~ 5