Richardson v. US Department of Labor et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting Defendants' 35 Motion to Stay Discovery. The stay on discovery shall remain in effect at least until the District Court issues a final ruling on the motion to dismiss that is currently pending. The Court also sua sponte note s that plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss is untimely. See Dkt. 42 . However, the Court will accept the brief as timely filed on this occasion. The Clerk's Office shall renote the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 36 ) for consideration on 5/13/2022. Signed by Judge J Richard Creatura.(MW) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

Case 2:20-cv-00923-LK Document 43 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

FREDERICK W. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
US DEP’T OF LABOR, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00923-LK
ORDER GRANTING STAY OF
DISCOVERY, ACCEPTING
UNTIMELY RESPONSIVE BRIEF,
AND RENOTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

15
16

This matter is before the Court on referral from the District Court and on defendants’

17

motion requesting that discovery be stayed until the Court has resolved their pending motion to

18

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 35.

19

Defendants assert that discovery is not necessary for plaintiff to respond to their motion

20

to dismiss. See Dkt. 35, at 1. Since defendants filed their motion, plaintiff has filed a response

21

to the motion to dismiss that includes extensive evidentiary attachments. Dkt. 42. Moreover, he

22

has not shown that the matters he identified as topics for discovery in his response to the motion

23

to stay would impact the issue raised in the motion to dismiss—whether claims of mishandling

24
ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DISCOVERY,
ACCEPTING UNTIMELY RESPONSIVE BRIEF, AND
RENOTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

Case 2:20-cv-00923-LK Document 43 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 2

1

and failing to respond to his various letters and requests amount to a cognizable claim of

2

violation of procedural due process that can be brought in this Court. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of

3

Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted) (“[A] refusal to grant

4

discovery to establish jurisdiction is not an abuse of discretion when ‘it is clear that further

5

discovery would not demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction[.]’”).

6

Therefore, the Court will grant the request to stay discovery. The stay on discovery shall

7

remain in effect at least until the District Court issues a final ruling on the motion to dismiss that

8

is currently pending. See Dkt. 36. At that time, if the District Court does not address the issue in

9

its ruling, then plaintiff can move to lift the stay, if appropriate.

10

The Court also sua sponte notes that plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss is

11

untimely. See Dkt. 42. However, the Court will accept the brief as timely filed on this occasion.

12

In the future, plaintiff shall review the Court’s local civil rules (see Local Civil Rule 7) and shall

13

ensure compliance with the Court’s deadlines when filing briefs or other documents.

14

Finally, because the Court is accepting the untimely responsive brief, the Court will also

15

extend the deadline for defendants to file a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The

16

reply brief is due on or before May 13, 2022. The Clerk’s Office shall renote the motion to

17

dismiss (Dkt. 36) for consideration on May 13, 2022. As noted above, the motion to stay

18

discovery (Dkt. 35) is granted.

19

Dated this 9th day of May, 2022.

20

A

21

J. Richard Creatura
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DISCOVERY,
ACCEPTING UNTIMELY RESPONSIVE BRIEF, AND
RENOTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 2