Wright et al v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

Filing 42

ORDER. The Court considered the parties' briefing and argument and GRANTED the parties' 39 Stipulated Motion to Continue Discovery. The Court DENIED the parties' 30 Stipulated Motion For Protective Order, without prejudice. The Cou rt also DENIED Plaintiffs' 26 Motion to Compel, without prejudice. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer about the subjects raised in Plaintiffs' motion to try to resolve their differences. Signed by Judge Jamal N Whitehead. (KRA)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

MICHAEL WRIGHT and ALEXIS
WRIGHT, a married couple,
Plaintiffs,

9

12

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, a foreign insurer,
Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER

v.

10
11

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-179

On March 26, 2024, the Court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs Michael and
Alexis Wright’s amended motion to compel discovery, and the parties’ stipulated
motions for a protective order and to continue the discovery cutoff. Dkt Nos. 26, 30,
39.
The Court considered the parties’ briefing and argument and GRANTED the
parties’ Stipulated Motion to Continue Discovery. Dkt. No. 39. The Court DENIED
the parties’ Stipulated Motion For Protective Order, without prejudice. Dkt. No. 30.
The Court also DENIED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, without prejudice. Dkt. No.
26. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer about the subjects raised in

23
ORDER - 1

1

Plaintiffs’ motion to try to resolve their differences. If Court intervention is

2

necessary, the parties must seek relief using the Court’s Expedited Joint Motion

3

Procedure under LCR 37(a)(2).

4

It is so ORDERED.

5

Dated this 26th day of March, 2024.

A

6
7

Jamal N. Whitehead
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER - 2