Anderson v. United States of America et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying defendant's 79 Motion to Compel Deposition. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

INGE T. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

SCOTT ALAN ANDERSON,
Defendant.

12

NO. C17-0891RSL
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION

13
14
15
16
17

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s “Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend
Properly Schedule[d] Deposition Under CR 37 and to Provide Requested Documents.” Dkt.
# 79. On November 28, 2018, the Court extended the discovery deadline in this matter because

18

the parties had not been diligent and were “woefully unprepared to proceed to the merits of the

19

case, mired as they are in discovery disputes.” Dkt. # 63 at 2-3. The parties were ordered to meet

20

and confer in order to find a mutually acceptable date for plaintiff’s deposition, which was to

21
22
23
24

occur on or before December 28, 2018. If a dispute arose, it was to be the subject of
“meaningful, substantive discussions between the parties in an effort to resolve the dispute
without Court intervention.” If a discovery-related motion was deemed necessary, it had to be

25

noted on the Court’s calendar for consideration no later than Friday, January 25, 2019. Dkt. # 63

26

at 3.

27
28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION - 1

1
2
3

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition is untimely, and good cause has not
been shown for an extension of either the deposition or discovery-related motion deadlines. The
motion to compel is therefore DENIED.

4
5
6
7
8

Dated this 25th day of March, 2019.

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION - 2