Ames v. Lindquist et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 71 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

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

6
7
8

MICHAEL AMES,

CASE NO. C16-5090 BHS
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

MARK LINDQUIST, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Mark Lindquist, Mark and

14

Chelsea Lindquist, and Pierce County’s (“Defendants”) motion for reconsideration. Dkt.

15

71.

16

On January 31, 2018, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal

17

concluding in part that Plaintiff Michael Ames has asserted allegations to support each

18

claim that are not subject to immunity defenses. Dkt. 68. On February 14, 2018,

19

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 71. Defendants contend that the

20

Court’s conclusion is in error “because the issues on appeal are inextricably linked with

21

all aspects of the case against Prosecutor Lindquist . . . .” Id. at 2. The Court agrees that

22

some issues may be intertwined, but, at this point, it appears that the majority of issues

ORDER - 1

1

are not inextricably linked. Moreover, the Court notes that the experienced counsel

2

representing both sides should be able to delineate the bounds of discovery in a

3

professional manner without Court intervention. 1 Therefore, the Court DENIES

4

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2018.

A

7
8

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1

21
22

In the parties’ joint status report Defendants’ request a scheduling conference to address
lingering discovery issues. Dkt. 72 at 6. The Court denies the request because it is unaware of
any discovery issues given that discovery has been stayed pending the resolution of Defendants’
motion to dismiss.

ORDER - 2