Bradford v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting in part and denying in part the parties 24 Stipulated Motion extending the pretrial scheduling deadlines: Discovery now to be completed by 10/2/2015, and Dispositive motions cutoff reset to 1/2/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

MARQUIS BRADFORD,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
JANE DOE HAYES, JOHN DOES ONE
THROUGH TEN, STATE OF
WASHINGTON, MARTHA HAYES,

CASE NO. C12-5366 KLS
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES
STIPULATED MOTION
EXTENDING THE PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING DEADLINES

Defendants.
This matter is on consent before United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom.

18 Dkt. 15. The parties have filed a third stipulated motion for a continuance of the pretrial
19 scheduling order in this case. Dkt. 24.
20

Defendants removed the action from state court on April 25, 2012 and filed an answer

21 one week later. Dkt. 1 and 8. The Court entered the original scheduling order on May 7, 2012.
22 Dkt. 9. After the time allotted for discovery had elapsed, but prior to the dispositive motion
23 deadline the parties filed a stipulated motion to amend the scheduling order. Dkt. 13. Counsel
24

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART THE PARTIES STIPULATED MOTION
EXTENDING THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
DEADLINES- 1

1 stated that the reason for the continuance was a delay in obtaining medical records from the
2 Department of Corrections and that counsel believed discovery could be completed by October
3 4, 2013. Dkt. 13, p. 2. Counsel made no mention of plaintiff requiring further medical treatment
4 or plaintiff’s medical condition being unstable in that motion. Based on information from
5 counsel, the Court adopted the dates proposed by the parties. Dkt. 14.
6

After this lengthy delay and again after discovery was closed, the parties filed a second

7 stipulated Motion to Amend the scheduling order. Dkt. 19. This motion was filed December 23,
8 2013 and the case was over a year and a half old. Id. In this motion counsel represented that Mr.
9 Bradford was undergoing injections and physical therapy for his injured back and that
10 meaningful discovery could not take place until his condition was stable. Again the Court
11 accepted counsel’s representations and granted another lengthy one year extension of time. Dkt.
12 20.
13

Now, on the eve of the discovery cutoff date, the parties have filed a third stipulated

14 motion to continue the dates in the pretrial scheduling order and they request an extension of
15 over a year with dispositive motions to be filed by January 2, 2016. Dkt. 24. Apparently the
16 physical therapy and injections that counsel represented to the court were on going in December
17 of 2013 were “delayed” by access to medical care issues. Dkt. 24, p. 1. Counsel represents that
18 plaintiff is now “moving forward with injections under fluoroscopy.” Id.
19

The Court understands that the parties are stating that plaintiff’s medical condition is not

20 stable. However, the undersigned is troubled by the lengthy delays in bringing this action to
21 trial. The case will be well over three years old and closer to four years old by the time the
22 parties dispositive motions are due. Dkt. 24, p. 4.
23
24

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART THE PARTIES STIPULATED MOTION
EXTENDING THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
DEADLINES- 2

1

The Court will GRANT the stipulated motion to extend the discovery cutoff date until

2 October 2, 2015, and the dispositive motion date to January 2, 2016. After ruling on the
3 dispositive motions the undersigned will set a due date for a Joint Status Report if any issue in
4 the action survives for trial.
5

The undersigned will not be inclined to consider further delay in moving this action

6 forward absent unforeseeable and compelling circumstances.
7

Dated this 6th day of October, 2014.

8

A

9

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART THE PARTIES STIPULATED MOTION
EXTENDING THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
DEADLINES- 3