Gamble v. The Boeing Company Employee Retirement Plan et al

Filing 34

ORDER striking dfts' 28 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot pltfs' 30 Motion for Extension of Time by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

MICHAEL GAMBLE and CHARLOTTE
GAMBLE, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13
14

No. C10-1618 RSL

vs.
THE BOEING COMPANY EMPLOYEE
RETIREMENT PLAN, THE BOEING
COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
PLAN COMMITTEE,

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION AS
MOOT

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment” (Dkt. # 28) and “Plaintiffs’ Motion to extend Deadline for Responding to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. # 30).
As set forth in the Court’s “Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel” (Dkt.
# 33), the Court has determined that Plaintiffs are entitled to the discovery they sought
from Defendants. Because the Court believes this discovery will substantially affect
many of the issues raised by Defendants in their motion, the Court STRIKES
Defendants’ motion (Dkt. # 28) without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. # 30) is thus
ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION AS MOOT - 1

1

DENIED as moot. The Court will file an amended scheduling order that provides the

2

parties with an adequate amount of time to complete discovery and bring dispositive

3

motions.

4
5

DATED this 26th day of October, 2011.

6
7
8
9

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION AS MOOT - 2