Boule v. Egbert et al
Filing
12
ORDER granting 11 Stipulated Motion to Extend Initial Scheduling Deadlines; FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 6/29/2017, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 7/5/2017, Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan as Required by FRCP26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f)due by 7/12/2017. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
ROBERT BOULE,
No. C17-106 RSM
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND INITIAL SCHEDULING
DEADLINES
v.
ERIK EGBERT and JANE DOE EGBERT
and their marital community,
Defendants.
STIPULATED MOTION
The parties jointly request that the Court extend by 30 days the deadlines for the
FRCP 26(f) Conference, Initial Disclosures, and Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan
outlined in the Court’s May 1, 2017, Order (Dkt. # 9).
Service of process on a federal officer sued in an individual capacity requires service
on the officer, the Attorney General’s Office, and the local United States Attorney’s Office.
See FRCP 4(i). In this case, the last of these three steps was accomplished on April 19, 2016.
(See Dkt. # 10-1.) As a result, Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert’s deadline to answer the
Complaint is June 19. See FRCP 12(a)(3) (providing federal officers 60 days to answer).
The Initial Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 9), however, requires the parties to submit a
Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan and exchange Initial Disclosures before Agent
26
LAW OFFICES OF
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND INITIAL
SCHEDULING DEADLINES (No. 2:17-cv-00106-RSM) - 1
MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING P.S.
1000 SECOND AVENUE, 30TH FLOOR
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
TELEPHONE (206) 382-1000
FACSIMILE (206) 386-7343
1
Egbert’s Answer is due. The current schedule would also allow the parties to commence
2
discovery before the Answer is filed.
3
Since Agent Egbert’s Answer—which may contain counterclaims—will clarify the
4
issues and help define the scope of necessary disclosures and discovery, it would be much
5
more efficient to postpone the initial deadlines until after the Answer is due.
Accordingly, good cause having been shown, the parties request the Court extend the
6
7
deadlines in the Initial Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 9) by 30 days as outlined below.
8
Current Deadline
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed Deadline
5/30/2017
6/29/2017
Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP
26(a)(1) Due:
6/5/2017
7/5/2017
Combined Joint Status Report and
Discovery Plan as Required by FRCP
26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f) Due:
6/12/2017
7/12/2017
Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference:
14
15
DATED: May 18, 2017
16
//
17
//
18
//
19
//
20
//
21
//
22
//
23
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND INITIAL
SCHEDULING DEADLINES (No. 2:17-cv-00106-RSM) - 2
MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING P.S.
1000 SECOND AVENUE, 30TH FLOOR
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
TELEPHONE (206) 382-1000
FACSIMILE (206) 386-7343
1
PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING P.S.
Attorneys for Agent Erik Egbert
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
By:
By:
s/ Breean L. Beggs per 5/17/17
e-mail authority
Breean L. Beggs, WSBA No. 20795
Paukert & Troppmann, PLLC
522 W Riverside Ave, Ste 560
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 232-7760
Fax: (509) 232-7762
E-mail: bbeggs@pt-law.com
s/Nikki C. Carsley
Geoffrey Grindeland, WSBA No. 35798
Nikki C. Carsley, WSBA No. 46650
Mills Meyers Swartling P.S.
1000 2nd Avenue, 30th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 382-1000
Fax: (206) 386-7343
E-mail: ggrindeland@millsmeyers.com
ncarsley@millsmeyers.com
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ORDER
Based on the foregoing stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of May 2017.
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND INITIAL
SCHEDULING DEADLINES (No. 2:17-cv-00106-RSM) - 3
MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING P.S.
1000 SECOND AVENUE, 30TH FLOOR
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
TELEPHONE (206) 382-1000
FACSIMILE (206) 386-7343
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?