Mulligan v. Kenney et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting plaintiff's 57 Motion for Extension of Time. The new discovery deadline is 02/17/11, and new deadline for dispositive motions is 03/17/11. A COPY OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN MAILED TO PLAINTIFF TODAY. Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.(GB)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) DR. DAVID KENNEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ )

08 BRUCE DANIEL MULLIGAN, 09 10 11 12 13

CASE NO. C09-842-RSL-MAT ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the

14 Court on plaintiff's motion to for an extension of the discovery deadline. The Court, having 15 reviewed plaintiff's motion, defendants' response thereto, and the remaining record, does 16 hereby ORDER as follows: 17 (1) Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 57) is GRANTED.

18 Plaintiff, by way of the instant motion, seeks an extension of the discovery deadline so that he 19 may locate, and be examined by, a board certified nephrologist. Defendants oppose plaintiff's 20 motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to confer with defendants' counsel before requesting 21 relief from the Court as required by Local Rule CR 37(a)(2), and that plaintiff has not 22 articulated a valid basis for the relief he requests. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PAGE - 1

01

The Court notes, with respect to defendants' first argument, that the current version of

02 this Court's Local Rules contains no Rule CR 37(a)(2). It appears that counsel intends to refer 03 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and/or to Local Rule CR37(a)(1)(A). Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal 04 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a party seeking to compel discovery include in the 05 motion a certification that the moving party "has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer" 06 with the party failing to make disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Local Rule CR 07 37(a)(1)(A) provides that "a good faith effort to confer with a party or person not making a 08 disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conference." Because 09 plaintiff is not seeking to compel discovery, but merely seeking an extension of time, neither 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) nor Local Rule 37(a)(1)(A) appear to apply. 11 Defendants' second argument, that plaintiff has presented no valid basis for the

12 requested extension is also off target. Defendants construe plaintiff's request for additional 13 time as being based on his need to obtain more information from defendant Kenney, and they 14 argue that plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to request relevant discovery from defendants 15 and that he has had ample time to do so. However, it is clear from the face of plaintiff's motion 16 that his request for additional time does not concern his ability to obtain timely discovery from 17 defendants, but his ability to obtain a timely opinion from an outside expert given that he is 18 incarcerated. 19 As defendants have offered no meritorious opposition to plaintiff's motion, and as it

20 does not appear that the additional time requested will cause any prejudice or will unduly delay 21 these proceedings, the request for additional time will be granted. 22 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PAGE - 2

01

(2)

Accordingly, the discovery deadline in this matter is hereby extended to

02 February 17, 2011, and the dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to March 17, 2011. 03 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

04 defendants, and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik. 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PAGE - 3 DATED this 4th day of August, 2010.

A

Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge