Bearden v. Clark County

Filing 62

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting 43 Motion to Continue; granting 44 Motion for Relief; Motion terminated: 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Clark County. Jury Trial is reset for 9/27/2016 at 09:00 AM before Judge Benjamin H. Settle, and the clerk shall issue a new scheduling order.(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 4 5 6 CHARLES BRIAN BEARDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, 7 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO CONTINUE v. 8 CASE NO. C14-5318 BHS 9 CLARK COUNTY, Defendant. 10 11 12 This matter comes before the Court on Charles Brian Bearden, Kristi Luckman, 13 Darrin Nicholas Funk, Arturo Rodriguez Perez, Samuel Born, Spencer Knight, Gregory 14 Matthew Rogers, Zachery Dean Lancaster, Donald Jackson Baxter, Jr., and John Davis 15 Mccain’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion to continue trial date (Dkt. 43) and motion for relief from 16 deadline to respond to Defendant Clark County’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary 17 judgment (Dkt. 44). 18 On January 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions requesting a new trial 19 schedule and additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs’ reason for 20 both requests is their failure to obtain necessary discovery consistent with the Court’s 21 current deadlines. Defendant responded to both motions and objected to any extension. 22 Dkts. 52 & 54. Plaintiffs replied. Dkts. 53 & 56. ORDER - 1 1 With regard to the trial date and deadlines, the Court may modify the schedule for 2 “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4). It is undisputed that Plaintiffs have not 3 conducted the depositions of necessary 30(b)(6) witnesses. While the parties point the 4 finger at one another for this failure, the Court is unable to conclude that either side is 5 solely responsible. Plaintiffs requested the depositions on October 15, 2015, and, for 6 various reasons, the parties have been unable to schedule the depositions. Thus, the 7 Court is faced with two choices: (1) push the discovery and dispositive motions back, 8 which will interfere with trial preparation, if a trial is necessary, or (2) reschedule the trial 9 and accompanying deadlines to accommodate the discovery. Upon review of the docket 10 and briefs, the Court concludes that a trial continuance is the best solution. Therefore, the 11 Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance. The Clerk shall set this case for 12 trial on the Court’s September 27, 2016 calendar and issue a new scheduling order for the 13 remaining deadlines. 14 With regard to the motion for an extension to respond, Plaintiffs have shown that 15 the depositions may provide facts necessary to justify an opposition. Therefore, the 16 Court GRANTS the motion. The parties shall meet and confer regarding an appropriate 17 noting date for the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 41) after the depositions in 18 question are complete. The Clerk shall remove the motion from the Court’s calendar. 19 Dated this 9th day of February, 2016. 20 21 A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 22 ORDER - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?