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)

Download PDF
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?