Dobson et al v. Vail et al

Filing 89

ORDER granting 84 Motion to Resolve Discovery Disputes; granting in part and denying in part 85 Motion for Sanctions/Modify Case Schedule signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom. Discovery completed by 8/31/2011, Dispositive motions due by 10/31/2011, Joint Status Report due by 12/30/2011. ***See order for complete details regarding discovery issues. (MET) cc: plaintiff

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7
8

JUSTIN DOBSON, GEORGE T. HICKS,
ROGER M. HOTRU, NATHAN
REYNOSO, and GERALD LEE
WHITEMAN1,

9
10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.
ELDON VAIL, MAGGIE MILLERSTOUT, ROBERT HERZOG, KAY
HEINRICH, JOHN/JANE DOE I
WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
and TORRANCE STRATTON,

15

NO. C10-5233 RBL/KLS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE AND
DENYING DISCOVERY ORDER
AND SANCTIONS

Defendants.

16

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and to Resolve

17

Discovery Disputes. ECF No. 84. Defendants request an extension of the pretrial deadlines

18

and for a discovery order setting forth rules and guidelines for the depositions of Defendants

19

Heinrich, Herzog and Miller-Stout. Id. In part, the discovery order seeks to limit the time for

20

each deposition to four hours and the time for taking all depositions to two days. Id.

21

Plaintiff filed his own motion to modify the scheduling order and asks for sanctions against

22

Defendants and counsel for unreasonably delaying and interfering with the completion of

23

discovery. ECF No. 85.

24
25
1

26

Mr. Whiteman is the only Plaintiff remaining in this action. See ECF Nos. 48 and 61.

ORDER - 1

1

Having reviewed the materials, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s request for

2

sanctions should be DENIED. ECF No. 85. There is simply no basis for an award of

3

sanctions as requested by the Plaintiff.

4

The Court also concludes that the request for a Discovery Order is appropriate,

5
6

particularly in light of the fact that a number of issues have been agreed upon by the parties.

7

Accordingly, it is ORDERDED:

8

(1) The Motion to Resolve Discovery Disputes (ECF No. 84) is GRANTED as

9

follows:

10
11

a. The depositions of Defendants Heinrich, Herzog and Miller-Stout shall all occur at
AHCC;

12
b. The three depositions will occur over two consecutive days, with each deposition
13
14

limited to no longer than 4 ½ hours.

15

c. Defendants will provide the following: a person to provide the oath at the

16

depositions; a tape recorder to be used during the depositions; cassettes for the tape recorder

17

(as agreed to by the Defendants for this case only). The Court notes the caveat by the

18

Defendants that their agreement to provide the cassettes shall not be considered a waiver of

19

DOC Policy 440.00.

20
d. Defense counsel may attend any deposition noted by Plaintiff and may record a
21
22
23
24
25

deposition on his/her own equipment or may ask Plaintiff to produce a copy of the original
tape.
e. Defendants who have given a deposition shall have 30 days to review, for accuracy,
any transcript that Plaintiff makes from the recorded testimony on the cassettes.

26

ORDER - 2

1
2
3
4

f. The issue as to whether Eldon Vail should be required to give a deposition has not
been determined by the Court.
(2) The motions to modify the case schedule ECF No. 84 and 85) are GRANTED as
follows: The discovery deadline is August 31, 2011; the deadline for filing dispositive

5
6
7

motions is October 31, 2011. The deadline for submission of the parties’ joint status report is
December 30, 2011.

8

(3) The motion for sanctions (ECF No. 85) is DENIED.

9

(4) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for

10
11

Defendants.
DATED this 27th day of June, 2011.

12
13
14

A

15

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER - 3