Mighell v. City of Edmonds et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying plaintiff's 21 Motion for Extension of Time; and denying 28 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. A copy of this Order has been mailed to plaintiff today. Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.(GB)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

MATHEW JAMES MIGHELL,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

CASE NO. C14-0285-RSM-MAT

v.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
DEADLINE

CITY OF EDMONDS, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges in this

15

action that the use of a police dog to effectuate his arrest in 2011 constituted excessive force.

16

Currently pending before the Court are plaintiff’s two motions to extend the discovery deadline.

17

Defendants have filed responses opposing both motions. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s

18

motions, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:

19

(1)

Plaintiff’s motions to extend the discovery deadline (Dkts. 21 and 28) are

20

DENIED. In the first of his two motions, plaintiff requested a 60 day extension of the discovery

21

deadline. He argued in support of his request that defendants’ responses to his first set of

22

discovery requests were overdue and that he was waiting to receive those responses before

23

sending out additional discovery. Plaintiff maintained that he would not have sufficient time to
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE
PAGE - 1

1

send out additional discovery requests, given the existing discovery deadline of September 19,

2

2014, unless the extension was granted. Defendants opposed plaintiff’s first motion on the

3

grounds that they had, in fact, responded to plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests and that

4

plaintiff would have had time, within the existing schedule, to serve defendants with additional

5

discovery. (See Dkt. 27.) Defendants also noted that plaintiff had not articulated in his motion

6

what he was hoping to uncover via additional discovery that would necessitate amendment of the

7

case schedule. (See id.)

8

In his second motion for extension of time, plaintiff requested that the pretrial deadlines

9

be extended until June 30, 2015 to allow him sufficient time to conduct discovery. Plaintiff

10

acknowledged in his second motion that he received defendants’ responses to his first set of

11

discovery requests on August 20, 2014, but that some of those responses raised questions which

12

could only be answered by conducting depositions. Defendants opposed plaintiff’s second

13

motion on the grounds that plaintiff’s indigent status would preclude him from taking

14

depositions and plaintiff had offered no explanation of how the depositions would be paid for.

15

(See Dkt. 29.) Defendants also argued in their response that plaintiff could not credibly assert

16

that he was just now discerning who the witnesses were to the event which precipitated this

17

lawsuit, or what information they possessed that was of interest to him, given that he had had

18

access through his criminal counsel to police reports pertaining to the event since his arrest in

19

2011. (See id.)

20

The Court concurs with defendants that plaintiff has not shown good cause for the

21

requested extensions of the discovery deadline and, in fact, the Court is concerned that the

22

requested extensions are nothing more than a tactic by plaintiff to delay these proceedings. The

23

entire basis of plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time was that he had yet to receive
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE
PAGE - 2

1

defendants’ responses to his initial discovery requests. However, plaintiff acknowledged in his

2

second motion for extension of time that he had received defendants’ responses to his initial

3

discovery requests on August 20, 2014, a day before he signed his first motion for extension of

4

time in which he represented to the Court that he had yet to receive the responses. Plaintiff made

5

no effort to explain this apparent misrepresentation, but instead proceeded to request an

6

additional nine months to complete depositions of witnesses whom he failed to even identify in

7

his motion.

8

The Court is not inclined to grant any extension of the discovery deadline based on the

9

sparse information supplied by plaintiff in his pending motions. This case will therefore proceed

10
11

in accordance with the previously issued pretrial scheduling order.
(2)

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

12

defendants, and to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez.

13

DATED this 29th day of October, 2014.

14

A

15

Mary Alice Theiler
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE
PAGE - 3