Worthington v. Panetta et al

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 12 Motion to determine inapplicability of Rule 26; denying 13 Motion to file administrative record. Federal Defendants to file a dispositive motion no later than March 22, 2012.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

JOHN WORTHINGTON,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. C11-5916BHS

v.
LEON E. PANETTA, in His Official
Capacity as Secretary of Defense for the
United States Department of Defense, et
al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14

Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
20

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Jerry Kosierowski, Timothy J.
Lowenberg, and Leon E. Panetta’s (“Federal Defendants”) motion to strike initial
deadlines (Dkt. 12) and Plaintiff John Worthington’s (“Worthington”) motion to file
administrative record (Dkt. 13). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in support of and
in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motions

21

without prejudice for the reasons stated herein.
22

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

23
24
25

On November 8, 2011, Worthington filed a complaint against the Federal
Defendants, Christine Gregoire, and Robert M. McKenna. Dkt. 1. Worthington asserts

26

three causes of action, two of which are judicial reviews of agency actions and the other

27

being a declaratory judgment and injunction. Id.

28
ORDER - 1

1

On November 10, 2011, the Court issued an order regarding initial disclosures, a

2

joint status report, and an initial discovery conference. Dkt. 4. The order set deadlines

3

for each of these requirements. Id.

4
5
6
7
8

On January 24, 2012, the Federal Defendants filed a motion to strike the initial
deadlines, disclosures, and conference. Dkt. 12. On February 2, 2012, Worthington
responded and included a motion for an order requiring the Federal Defendants to file an
administrative record on his first cause of action. Dkt. 13. On February 10, 2012, the
Federal Defendants replied to their motion. Dkt. 15. On February 13, 2012, the Federal

9

Defendants responded to Worthington’s motion. Dkt. 16. On February 17, 2012,
10
11

Worthington replied to his motion. Dkt. 17.
II. DISCUSSION

12
13

In their response to Worthington’s motion, the Federal Defendants contend that

14

Worthington’s first cause of action is jurisdictionally deficient. Dkt. 16 at 6-11.

15

Worthington counters that he consents to the Court dismissing his motion without

16

prejudice so that the Federal Defendants can present their jurisdictional arguments in a

17

properly briefed dispositive motion. The Court agrees with Worthington’s proposal.

18

Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice Worthington’s motion.

19

With regard to the Federal Defendants’ motion, the Court will strike the initial

20

deadlines pending a dispositive motion. The Federal Defendants must file a dispositive

21

motion no later than March 22, 2012 or seek an extension from the Court. After ruling on

22

the dispositive issues, the Court will address the need for discovery in this action. The

23

Court is not persuaded at this time that Rule 26 is inapplicable to this proceeding.

24

Therefore, the Court also denies without prejudice the Federal Defendants’ motion.

25
26

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Federal Defendants’ motion to strike

27

initial deadlines (Dkt. 12) and Worthington’s motion to file administrative record (Dkt.
28
ORDER - 2

1

13) are DENIED without prejudice. The Federal Defendants must file a dispositive

2

motion no later than March 22, 2012.

3

DATED this 6th day of March, 2012.

4
5

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 3