McCracken v. Merchants Credit Corporation

Filing 12

ORDER Regarding Local Rule 7 Telephonic Hearing Concerning Discovery Dispute. The court SCHEDULES a telephonic hearing on Friday, May 25, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. concerning the discovery dispute initially raised in Ms. McCracken's April 25, 2018 moti on. Prior to the May 25, 2018, telephonic hearing, the court ORDERS each party to file a letter no later than Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 12:00 p.m., which outlines its position concerning the discovery at issue. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (TH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

JANET MCCRACKEN,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.
12

MERCHANTS CREDIT
CORPORATION,

13
14

CASE NO. C17-0112JLR
ORDER REGARDING LOCAL
RULE 7 TELEPHONIC HEARING
CONCERNING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

Defendant.

15
On April 25, 2018, Plaintiff Janet McCracken filed a motion to compel discovery.
16
(Mot. (Dkt. # 9).) On April 26, 2018, the court entered an order striking the motion
17
because Ms. McCracken’s counsel failed to comply with the court’s directive in its
18
scheduling order that “before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must
19
request a conference with the court.” (See Order (Dkt. # 11) at 1-2 (citing Sched. Order
20
(Dkt. # 8) at 2).)
21
//
22

ORDER - 1

1

Following the court’s April 26, 2018, order, Ms. McCracken’s counsel requested a

2

Local Rule 7(i) telephonic hearing to resolve the discovery dispute raised in the April 25,

3

2018, motion. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(i). Local Rule 7(i) requires that

4

“[n]o request for a telephone motion shall be considered unless all counsel participate in

5

the call making the request, or unless it is represented by counsel making the call that

6

reasonable efforts have been made to include all counsel in the call, and that such efforts

7

were unavailing.” See id. Ms. McCracken’s counsel represents that he made reasonable

8

efforts to include Defendant Merchants Credit Corporation’s (“Merchants Credit”)

9

counsel in his call requesting a Rule 7(i) telephonic motion but his efforts were

10

unsuccessful. See id. The court therefore concludes that Ms. McCracken’s counsel

11

meets the requirements for requesting a telephonic hearing under Local Rule 7(i), and the

12

court will hear the discovery dispute as a Rule 7(i) telephonic motion. See id.

13

Accordingly, the court SCHEDULES a telephonic hearing on Friday, May 25,

14

2018, at 9:00 a.m. concerning the discovery dispute initially raised in Ms. McCracken’s

15

April 25, 2018 motion and imposes the following “procedural requirements” on the

16

parties. See id. Prior to the May 25, 2018, telephonic hearing, the court ORDERS each

17

party to file a letter no later than Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 12:00 p.m., which outlines its

18

position concerning the discovery at issue. The court further ORDERS the parties to

19

limit the length of their letters to no more than two (2) pages. The court will hear

20

counsel’s oral argument at the May 25, 2018, telephonic hearing and then issue an oral

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 2

1

ruling. The court’s courtroom deputy will contact the parties with instructions on

2

participating in the May 25, 2018, telephonic hearing.

3

Dated this 16th day of May, 2018.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3