Downey v. Andrews M.D. et al

Filing 69

MINUTE ORDER denying Defendants' 66 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's response. In addition, and more importantly, Defendants were not entitled to file a reply brief in this matter. Accordingly, Defendants' request for additional time to file a reply is DENIED. Defendants shall comply with the Local Civil Rules in all future filings. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

DYLAN JAMES DOWNEY,

10

Plaintiff,

MINUTE ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C17-0968-JCC

STUART ANDREWS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
Coughenour, United States District Judge:

17

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 66)

18

Plaintiffs’ response (Dkt. No. 65) to Defendants’ objections (Dkt. No. 64) to Magistrate Judge

19

James Donohue’s report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 63), and Plaintiff’s surreply (Dkt. No.

20

68). Having reviewed the briefing 1, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No.

21

66).

22

The Local Civil Rules establish the filing deadlines for responding to objections made to

23

a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 72. A party

24

must file its response to objections made to a report and recommendation dealing with a

25
1

26

The Court considered Plaintiff’s surreply because it was filed in compliance with the
Local Civil Rules. See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(g).
MINUTE ORDER
C17-0968-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

dispositive motion “by the day before the noting date.” Id. at (b). Nothing in Judge Donohue’s

2

report and recommendation altered this deadline. (See Dkt. No. 63) (“Responses to objections

3

may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections.”) Defendants’ objections were

4

noted for June 8, 2018. (Dkt. No. 64.) Plaintiff timely filed his response to Defendants’

5

objections the day before the noting day. (Dkt. No. 65.)

6

In addition, and more importantly, Defendants were not entitled to file a reply brief in

7

this matter. See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 72(b) (for objections made to a magistrate judge’s

8

report and recommendation “[n]o reply will be considered.”). Nothing in Judge Donohue’s report

9

and recommendation allowed Defendants to file a reply brief. (See Dkt. No. 63.) Defendants did

10

not cite to any of the Local Rules in support of their request for additional time to file a reply.

11

(Dkt. No. 66.) Accordingly, Defendants’ request for additional time to file a reply is DENIED.

12

Defendants shall comply with the Local Civil Rules in all future filings.

13

DATED this 13th day of June 2018.

14

William M. McCool
Clerk of Court

15

s/Tomas Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MINUTE ORDER
C17-0968-JCC
PAGE - 2