Stockmyer v. Admire et al

Filing 53

ORDER Denying 42 Motion to Compel Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. **2 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Donald Stockmyer, Prisoner ID: 217862)(GMR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 DONALD STOCKMYER, 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL v. 13 CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05681-RBL-DWC ADMIRE, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Donald Stockmyer’s Motion requesting the Court compel discovery. Dkt. 42. 1 The Court concludes Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 37 and failed to timely file the Motion. Accordingly, the Motion (Dkt.42) is denied. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1): . . . On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person 22 1 Also before the Court is Defendants Admire, Tanja Cain, Michael Hotlhe, Klepps, and Julie Smith’s 23 Motion for Summary Judgment, which became ready for the Court’s consideration on July 14, 2017. Dkt. 43. Because Defendants Joni Ayeki and Dail Caldwell have just been served, the Court anticipates the Motion for 24 Summary Judgment will be re-noted. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL - 1 1 or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action. 2 See also Dkt. 26; LCR 37(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff is moving for a Court order compelling 3 Defendants to answer interrogatories and produce documents. Dkt. 42. Plaintiff, however, failed 4 to certify he conferred or attempted to confer with Defendants’ counsel regarding the requested 5 discovery. See id. Therefore, Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 37. 6 Further, Plaintiff was required to file any motion to compel no later than May 4, 2017. 7 See Dkt. 26, p. 6. Plaintiff filed his Motion on June 13, 2017, which is more than a month after 8 the deadline to file a motion to compel expired. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely. 9 As Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 37 and as he did not timely file the Motion, the 10 Motion (Dkt. 42) is denied. 11 Dated this 14th day of August, 2017. 12 13 A 14 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL - 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?