Dixon v. Forks City of

Filing 45

ORDER denying 36 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Exclude Testimony and Evidence by Judge Franklin D. Burgess.(SPH)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to exclude certain testimony and evidence alleged to have been untimely disclosed. The Court, having reviewed all materials submitted by the parties and relied upon for authority, is fully informed and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated below. This is an action by Plaintiff James Dixon against Defendant City of Forks alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq., and Washington's Minimum Wage Act (MWA), 49.46 RCW, for failure to compensate Plaintiff for off-shift/overtime care and maintenance of his police dog while employed as a police officer for the City of Forks. Plaintiff seeks to exclude the testimony of Chief Bruce Hall and Nerissa Davis. Plaintiff ORDER - 1 v. CITY OF FORKS, Defendant. JAMES DIXON, Plaintiff, Case No. C08-5189 FDB ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND EXCLUDE DEFENDANT'S UNTIMELY DISCLOSED TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

objects to the testimony of these witnesses on the basis of untimely disclosure. The Defendant counters that the disclosures were timely and properly supplemented. The initial discovery cut-off date in this matter was June 1, 2009. On June 30, 2009, the Defendant City of Forks provided supplemental disclosure naming Chief Hall and Ms. Davis as individuals with discoverable information. Prior to Defendant's disclosures, this Court had entered a June 3, 2009 Minute Order providing: "The Deadline for filing discovery and the settlement report is extended to June 30, 2009." Contrary to Plaintiff's understanding, this is not a limited order, but a general extension of discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff's argument that the disclosures were untimely is without merit. Conclusion For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff's motion to exclude untimely disclosed witness testimony and evidence is denied. ACCORDINGLY: IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Exclude Defendant's Untimely disclosed Testimony and Evidence [Dkt. # 36] is DENIED.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2009.

A
ORDER - 2

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE