Rubio v. Public Health Seattle King County et al

Filing 31

ORDER by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida denying Plaintiff's pro se 29 motion for an extension of a discovery deadline. (PM) cc: Plaintiff via the USPS

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

6
7
8

BRANDON J. RUBIO,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

CASE NO. C16-1307-JCC-BAT
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY
DEADLINE

v.
ARNEL DE JESUS,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Brandon J. Rubio moves the Court for an extension of a discovery deadline.
Dkt. 29. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
First, the motion seeks relief from a deadline not imposed in this matter. To date, no

16

discovery deadlines have been set in this case. See generally Dkt. Rather, it appears plaintiff’s

17

motion is directed to deadlines set by a pretrial scheduling order in Rubio v. King County, Case

18

No. C16-1269-JCC-JPD. This Court lacks the authority to issue any orders in that case, and

19

therefore declines to grant plaintiff’s request.

20
21

Additionally, plaintiff improperly filed his motion pro se while he was represented by an
attorney in this matter. This Court’s local rules prohibit a party from acting on his own behalf

22
23
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE 1

1

while represented by counsel. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. 83.2(b)(5).1 The Court therefore

2

also declines to entertain plaintiff’s motion on this basis.

3

Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. 29, is therefore DENIED.

4

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable John

5

C. Coughenour.

6

DATED this 17th day of May, 2017.

7

A

8

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1

22
23

LCR 83.2(b)(5) provides: “When a party is represented by an attorney of record in a case, the party cannot appear
or act on his or her own behalf in that case, or take any step therein, until after the party requests by motion to
proceed on his or her own behalf, certifies in the motion that he or she has provided copies of the motion to his or
her current counsel and to the opposing party, and is granted an order of substitution by the court terminating the
party’s attorney as counsel and substituting the party in to proceed pro se; provided, that the court may in its
discretion hear a party in open court, notwithstanding the fact that he or she is represented by an attorney.”

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE 2