Damasco v. United States of America

Filing 6

ORDER granting 5 Stipulated Motion to extend initial scheduling dates; FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 7/13/2017, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 7/20/2017, Joint Status Report due by 7/27/2017, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 EDITHA DAMASCO, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 CASE NO. 2:17-cv-641-RSM v. STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND INITIAL SCHEDULING DATES AND PROPOSED ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Defendant(s). 15 16 JOINT STIPULATION 17 18 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Editha Damasco, through her attorney, David H. 19 Zielke, and Defendant, the United States of America, through its counsel, Tricia Boerger, 20 Assistant United States Attorney, in this stipulated motion to extend the initial scheduling 21 22 dates in this matter as follows: 23 24 Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: 07/13/2017 Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): 07/20/2017 Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan as Required by FRCP 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f): 07/27/2017 25 26 27 28 Stipulated Motion to Extend Initial Scheduling Dates and Proposed Order 2:17-cv-641-RSM - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 553-7970 1 2 This extension is necessary because the United States was only recently served and has not yet filed an answer or had adequate time to confer with the federal agency or 3 4 understand the facts or nature of the case sufficient to participate in a discovery 5 conference, submit initial disclosures or prepare a discovery plan. The United States’ 6 answer is due on July 3, 2017. As such, the parties are requesting an extension of time 7 8 for the initial scheduling dates to allow them time to review the initial pleadings and 9 participate meaningfully in the FRCP 26 process. 10 The parties though their counsel further agree that neither party will be prejudiced 11 12 by this agreement. 13 DATED this 2nd day of June, 2017. 14 Respectfully submitted, 15 ANNETTE L. HAYES United States Attorney 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 s/ David H. Zielke DAVID H. ZIELKE, WSBA #36494 The Law Firm of David H. Zielke, PS 2122 112th Ave. NE, Suite A-300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 202-7743 Fax: (425) 202-7742 Email: david@zielkelawfirm.com 24 s/ Tricia Boerger TRICIA BOERGER, WSBA #38581 Assistant United States Attorney Western District of Washington United States Attorney’s Office 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 Phone: 206-553-7970 Email: tricia.boerger@usdoj.gov 25 26 27 28 Stipulated Motion to Extend Initial Scheduling Dates and Proposed Order 2:17-cv-641-RSM - 2 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 553-7970 1 2 ORDER The Court, having reviewed the parties’ stipulated motion and the record in this 3 4 matter and being fully informed, finds good cause exists to extend the initial scheduling 5 dates as requested. Counsel for the United States has not yet filed an answer or had 6 sufficient time to review the case, such that neither party would be in a position to 7 8 meaningfully participate in the FRCP 26 process. As such, and the parties having so 9 stipulated and agreed, it is hereby ORDERED that the initial scheduling dates are 10 extended as follows: 11 12 Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: 07/13/2017 13 Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): 07/20/2017 Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan as Required by FRCP 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f): 07/27/2017 14 15 16 17 18 DATED this 5th day of June, 2017. 19 20 22 A 23 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 24 25 26 27 28 Stipulated Motion to Extend Initial Scheduling Dates and Proposed Order 2:17-cv-641-RSM - 3 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 553-7970

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?