Smith v. Evergreen Treatment Services

Filing 29

ORDER striking without prejudice Defendant's 28 Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

MARK SMITH,

CASE NO. C18-0701JLR
Plaintiff,

11
v.

ORDER STRIKING DISCOVERY
MOTION

12
13

EVERGREEN TREATMENT
SERVICES,

14

Defendant.

15
Before the court is Defendant Evergreen Treatment Services’s (“Evergreen”)
16
motion to compel Plaintiff Mark Smith’s responses to discovery. (Mot. (Dkt. # 28).)
17
Evergreen filed that motion without first requesting a conference with the court. (See
18
Dkt.) The motion therefore contravenes the court’s December 12, 2018, scheduling
19
order. (See Sched. Order (Dkt. # 25) at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(v))
20
(“[P]ursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court ‘direct[s] that before
21
moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the
22

ORDER - 1

1

court’ by notifying [the courtroom deputy] . . . .” (second alteration in original))); see

2

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(v) (permitting the court, in its scheduling order, to

3

“direct that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a

4

conference with the court”). The court therefore STRIKES Evergreen’s motion to

5

compel discovery (Dkt. # 28) without prejudice to renewing the motion in a manner that

6

comports with the court’s scheduling order.

7

Dated this 10th day of July, 2019.

8
9

A

10

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 2