Lucas et al v. Camacho et al

Filing 61

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 45 Motion for a Status Conference.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiffs)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

CASE NO. C11-5350BHS

v.
JOE CAMACHO, et al.,
Defendants.

12

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR A STATUS
CONFERENCE

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Joe Camacho, Deborah

15

Camacho and Angela Stephenson’s (“Camacho Defendants”) motion for a status

16

conference (Dkt. 45). The Court has reviewed the brief filed in support of the motion and

17

the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.

18
19
20

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 5, 2011, Plaintiffs Chassidy Lucas, Bianca Lucas, and CB Stormwater
(“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Joe Camacho, Deborah Camacho,

21

Angela Stephenson, George Parker, and Ali Parker. Dkt. 1. On May 16, 2011, the Court
22
23
24
25

issued an order establishing certain deadlines as follows: Joint Status Report due by
9/13/2011, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 8/23/2011, Initial Disclosure Deadline is
9/6/2011. Dkt. 3.

26

On August 3, 2011, the Camacho Defendants filed a motion for a status

27

conference. Dkt. 45. Although Plaintiffs have filed various documents, it is unclear

28
ORDER - 1

1

whether Plaintiffs filed a document that was responsive to the Camacho Defendants’

2

motion. On August 19, 2011, the Camacho Defendants replied. Dkt. 53.
II. DISCUSSION

3
4

In their motion, the Camacho Defendants request a judicial status conference “to

5

resolve various decorum, procedural, factual, and jurisdictional issues which for reasons

6

stated below cannot be resolved without strict judicial oversight.” Dkt. 45 at 1-2. The

7

Camacho Defendants list several issues that it seeks to discuss with the Court. Id. at 4.

8

Only three of these issues actually relate to this civil action: the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)

9

conference, the propriety of a stay, and a protective order.

10
11

With regard to the discovery conference, all parties must attempt in good faith to
hold a discovery conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(2). It is Plaintiffs’ responsibility to

12

initiate the communications necessary to comply with the Court ordered conference. Dkt.
13

3 at 4-5. If any party fails to participate in framing a discovery plan, the party may be
14
15
16

subject to sanctions by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(f). Failure to comply with this Court
order may result in dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)(2). With these rules in

17

mind, the Court does not find that there is a need for a judicial conference at this time.

18

With regard to a stay and/or a protective order, the proper method of requesting

19

relief from the Court is by filing a motion. Local Rule 7.
III. ORDER

20
21
22
23

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Camacho Defendants’ motion for a
status conference (Dkt. 45) is DENIED.
DATED this 8th day of September, 2011.

24
25

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

26
27
28
ORDER - 2