Anderson v. The United States of America

Filing 43

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Stay Discovery and Discovery Motion Deadline re parties' 42 Stipulated Motion; Discovery is stayed and discovery motions filing deadline is postponed until the resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 40 ). Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

1

The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

10
11 CHESTER ANDERSON,
12
13

CASE NO. 2:16-cv-00586-TSZ
Plaintiff,

v.

14
15

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

16
17

Defendant.

18
19

STIPULATED MOTION AND
ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
AND DISCOVERY MOTION
DEADLINE PENDING
RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.
12(h)(3), OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

20
21
22

INTRODUCTION
The parties in the above-entitled action, by and through their attorneys of record,

23 hereby stipulate and agree that good cause exists to stay discovery and postpone the
24 upcoming discovery motions filing deadline pending the Court’s resolution of the
25 government’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), or, in the
26 Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment (Motion to Dismiss). See Dkt. 40.
27

The parties request a stay of discovery and postponement of the discovery motions

28 filing deadline because the government’s Motion to Dismiss is potentially dispositive of
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
AND CASE SCHEDULING DEADLINES
2:16-cv-00586-TSZ - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
[phone]

1 this action and they agree that the legal claims set forth in the motion can be resolved
2 without additional discovery. The Motion to Dismiss is noted for April 27, 2018; the
3 discovery motions filing deadline is April 19, 2018 and the discovery deadline is May 28,
4 2018. See Dkt. 31. Absent a stay of discovery, the parties anticipate that over the next
5 two months, they will (1) depose several of Plaintiff’s medical treatment providers (most
6 of whom are located in Oregon), (2) depose each other’s expert witnesses (including
7 Plaintiff’s prison expert, who is located in Louisiana), and (3) incur additional expert
8 witness costs, including the government’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 examination of Plaintiff.
9 The parties agree that this particularly costly phase of discovery will likely have no
10 bearing on the issues before the Court on the government’s Motion to Dismiss, and, if the
11 Court grants the government’s motion, it would be superfluous. Accordingly, the parties
12 submit that good cause supports a stay of discovery and postponement of the discovery
13 motions filing deadline until the Court rules on the government’s pending Motion to
14 Dismiss.
15

STATEMENT OF FACTS

16 A.

The Government’s Motion to Dismiss

17

The government’s Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s Third

18 Amended Complaint (TAC) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) due to lack of subject
19 matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims. See
20 generally Dkt. 40. The government contends that even if the Court were to accept
21 Plaintiff’s allegations as true, he cannot meet his threshold burden of proving that the
22 Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims, which, the government argues, are
23 precluded by the Inmate Accident Compensation Act (IACA). See id. If the Court
24 agrees with the government, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) mandates dismissal of Plaintiff’s
25 TAC.
26

Alternatively, the Motion to Dismiss seeks partial dismissal for lack of subject

27 matter jurisdiction based on the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, and partial
28 summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. See generally Dkt. 40. If the Court
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
AND CASE SCHEDULING DEADLINES
2:16-cv-00586-TSZ - 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
[phone]

1 grants the Motion to Dismiss on either of these bases, the parties agree that it will
2 materially reduce the scope of this litigation and thus the scope of discovery.
3 B.

The Parties’ Upcoming Discovery

4

The parties have recently exchanged expert witness disclosures and will be

5 moving forward shortly with expert and final fact witness depositions. The depositions
6 will include several medical witnesses—up to five of whom are located in Portland,
7 Oregon—and Plaintiff’s prison expert, who resides in Louisiana. Additionally, Plaintiff
8 has agreed to appear for a Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 physical examination with the government’s
9 expert podiatrist prior to the close of discovery. Thus, the parties anticipate that they will
10 incur substantial, potentially unnecessary costs over the next two months if discovery is
11 not stayed while the Court decides whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over
12 Plaintiff’s TAC.
13

DISCUSSION

14 A. Standard for Stay of Discovery
15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A) provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an

16 order to protect a party or person from . . . undue burden or expense, including …
17 forbidding [] discovery.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that district courts have
18 “wide discretion in controlling discovery,” which includes staying discovery until the
19 resolution of a dispositive motion. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.
20 1988); see also Orchid Biosciences, Inc. v. St. Louis Univ., 198 F.R.D. 670, 672 (S.D.
21 Cal. 2001) (internal citations omitted) (courts have “broad discretion to stay discovery in
22 a case while a dispositive motion is pending.”). When additional discovery would not
23 affect the court’s decision on the pending dispositive motion, a “stay furthers the goal of
24 efficiency for the court and litigants.” Little, 863 F.2d at 685.
25

Here, the parties stipulate and agree that good cause warrants a stay of discovery

26 because the Court can decide the government’s Motion to Dismiss without them
27 engaging in further discovery. Additionally, the parties submit that a stay of discovery
28 furthers the Court’s and parties’ shared goal of efficiency by allowing the Court to
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
AND CASE SCHEDULING DEADLINES
2:16-cv-00586-TSZ - 3

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
[phone]

1 determine whether Plaintiff has any viable claims—and, if so, the scope of any remaining
2 litigation—before the Court or the parties expend additional resources on potentially
3 unnecessary matters. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court enter a stay of
4 discovery.
5

The parties also request that the Court postpone the upcoming discovery motions

6 filing deadline (April 19, 2018), which will lapse prior to the noting date for the
7 government’s Motion to Dismiss. If the Court denies the government’s motion, in whole
8 or in part, the parties respectfully request that the Court allow them to propose a new
9 discovery motions filing deadline and discovery deadline, and, if necessary, a new trial
10 date and pretrial deadlines.
11
12

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, parties jointly request that the Court stay discovery

13 and postpone the upcoming discovery motions filing deadline pending the Court’s
14 resolution of the government’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3),
15 or, in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment. A proposed form of Order is
16 attached hereto.
17

DATED this 6th day of April, 2018.

18
19

LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. YOUNG

ANNETTE L. HAYES
United States Attorney

s/ Steven R. Young
STEVEN R. YOUNG, WSBA No. 20754
Law Offices of Steven R. Young
600 Anton Blvd., Suite 650
Costa Mesa, California
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

s/ David R. East
DAVID R. EAST, WSBA #31481
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
Seattle, Washington 98101-1271
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorney for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendant United States of America

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
AND CASE SCHEDULING DEADLINES
2:16-cv-00586-TSZ - 4

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

ORDER
The parties having so stipulated and agreed, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The parties’ Stipulated Motion, docket no. 42, is GRANTED; and
Discovery is stayed and the discovery motions filing deadline is postponed
pending the resolution of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3), or, in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion to Dismiss”)
(Dkt. 40); and
If the Court denies the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, in whole or in part, the
parties shall, within thirty (30) days of the Court’s order denying the Motion to Dismiss,
jointly propose a new discovery motions filing deadline and discovery deadline, and, if
necessary, a new trial date and pretrial deadlines.

12
13

DATED this 12th day of April, 2018.

14

A

15
16

Thomas S. Zilly
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
AND CASE SCHEDULING DEADLINES
2:16-cv-00586-TSZ - 5

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
[phone]