Emmanuel et al v. King County et al

Filing 69

ORDER re Plaintiff Richard Homchick's 59 Motion to Compel. The court court STRIKES Mr. Homchick's motion (Dkt. # 59 ) without prejudice to renewing the motion in a manner that comports with the court's scheduling order. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

KEITH EMMANUEL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
v.
12
13

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF
RICHARD HOMCHICK’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

KING COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

CASE NO. C18-0377JLR

Before the court is Plaintiff Richard Homchick’s motion to compel Defendant

16

King County to produce a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) designee to testify

17

about Defendants’ third affirmative defense and other matters (MTC (Dkt. # 59).). Mr.

18

Homchick filed his motion without first requesting a conference with the court. (See

19

Dkt.) The motion therefore contravenes the court’s August 13, 2019, scheduling order.

20

(See Sched. Order (Dkt. # 53) at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(v)) (“[P]ursuant to

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court ‘direct[s] that before moving for an order

22

relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court’ by notifying

ORDER - 1

1

[the courtroom deputy] . . . .” (second alteration in original))); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

16(b)(3)(B)(v) (permitting the court, in its scheduling order, to “direct that before moving

3

for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court”).

4

The court therefore STRIKES Mr. Homchick’s motion (Dkt. # 59) without prejudice to

5

renewing the motion in a manner that comports with the court’s scheduling order.

6

Dated this 18th day of June, 2020.

7
8

A

9

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 2