Lucero v. Cenlar FSB, et al

Filing 74

ORDER entering stipulation of plaintiff and RCO Legal PS re deposition of RCO Legal PS by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS)

The Honorable Judge Robert S. Lasnik

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
LETICIA LUCERO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CENLAR FSB and BAYVIEW LOAN
)
SERVICING, LLC, MORTGAGE
)
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, )
INC., NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, )
INC., ROUTH CRABTREE OLSEN, P.S., aka )
RCO LEGAL, P.S., JENNIFER DOBRON,
)
individually and in her capacity as corporate
)
officer and/or employee of CENLAR FSB,
)
NANCY K. MORRIS, individually and her
)
capacity as notary public and/or employee of
)
CENLAR, FSB,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

No. 2:13-cv-00602 RSL
ORDER ENTERING STIPULATION
OF PLAINTIFF AND RCO LEGAL,
P.S. REGARDING FED. R. CIV. P.
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF RCO
LEGAL, P.S.

THIS MATTER having come on before the Court upon the Stipulation of Plaintiff and RCO
Legal Regarding Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition of RCO Legal, P.S.; and the Court being fully
advised in the premises, now therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition of
RCO is hereby stayed pending the Court’s determination of Defendant RCO’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings Under Rule 12(c) (“RCO’S Motion”).
25
26
ORDER ENTERING STIPULATION OF PLAINTIFF
AND RCO LEGAL, P.S. REGARDING FED. R. CIV.
P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF RCO LEGAL, P.S.
PAGE 1 OF 3 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00602-RSL

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that RCO’s obligation to

2

respond to the Subpoena Duces Tecum served by Plaintiff on RCO is hereby stayed pending the

3

Court’s determination of Defendant RCO’s Motion.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that if RCO’s Motion is not

5

granted and Plaintiff wishes to go forward with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of RCO, the

6

Parties agree to work to reach agreement in regard to the scope of the deposition testimony sought

7

by Plaintiff and to reschedule the deposition to a mutually agreeable time.

8
9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that RCO’s right to move for
a protective order if the Parties cannot mutually agree to the scope of the deposition testimony
sought is not waived.
It is so ordered.

12
13

DATED this 10th day of June, 2014.

14

A
Robert S. Lasnik

15
16

United States District Judge 

17
18
19
20

Presented By:

21
RCO LEGAL, P.S.

22
23
24

Dated: June 9, 2014

By: /s/ Heidi Buck Morrison
Heidi Buck Morrison, WSBA No.41769
Of Attorneys for Defendant RCO Legal, P.S.

25
26
ORDER ENTERING STIPULATION OF PLAINTIFF
AND RCO LEGAL, P.S. REGARDING FED. R. CIV.
P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF RCO LEGAL, P.S.
PAGE 2 OF 3 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00602-RSL

1
2
3

GRAND CENTRAL LAW, PLLC

4
5

Dated: June 9, 2014

6

By: /s/ Ha Thu Dao, per email authorization
Ha Thu Dao, WSBA No.21796
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

7
8

BARRAZA LAW, PLLC

9
10
11

Dated: June 9, 2014

By: /s/ _Vicenta Omar Barraza, per email
authorization
Vicente Omar Barraza, WSBA No. 43589
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER ENTERING STIPULATION OF PLAINTIFF
AND RCO LEGAL, P.S. REGARDING FED. R. CIV.
P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF RCO LEGAL, P.S.
PAGE 3 OF 3 - CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00602-RSL