Beaming White LLC et al v. Rabon et al

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 35 signed by Judge David W. Christel.(KEB)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 BEAMING WHITE LLC, LUIS LAJOUS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05858-DWC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 13 14 JASON RABON, SHANON RABON, WHITEN MY SMILE NOW, VISION MARKETING CONSULTANTS, INC., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged trademark 18 and copyright infringement by Defendants. The parties have consented to proceed before a 19 United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. §636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; Local Magistrate 20 Judge Rule MJR 13; Dkt. 11, Joint Status Report; Dkt. 12, Minute Order on Consent. Before the 21 Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Certification, and Memorandum 22 (“Motion to Compel”). Dkt. 35. 23 On May 17, 2017, the Court held a telephone conference, wherein the Court reserved 24 ruling on the Motion to Compel. See Dkt. 42. The parties filed several status reports on the ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL - 1 1 Motion to Compel, see Dkt. 49, 51, 52, 57, 62, and, on September 12, 2017, the Court issued an 2 Order directing the parties to file a joint status report on or before September 29, 2017 regarding 3 the Motion to Compel. Dkt. 60. The Court notified the parties that if they were still engaged in 4 the discovery process at that time, the Court would enter an order denying without prejudice the 5 Motion to Compel. 6 The parties filed a joint status report on September 29, 2017. Dkt. 62. The parties both 7 agree they are still engaged in the discovery process. Id. Plaintiffs state they are continuing to 8 wait for Defendants to supplement their responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and, 9 therefore, some pretrial deadlines may need to be extended. Id. at p. 2. They also request the 10 Motion to Compel be held in abeyance because the parties are still engaged in the discovery 11 process. Id. at p. 3. Defendants request the Motion to Compel be denied without prejudice 12 because the parties are still engaged in discovery. Id. 13 After consideration of the September 2017 Joint Status Report and the relevant record, 14 the Motion to Compel (Dkt. 35) is denied without prejudice. If the parties cannot resolve the 15 discovery matters, a motion to compel may be filed after the parties have complied with Rule 37 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, if the parties determine an extension of time of 17 any pretrial deadline is necessary, a motion must be filed with the Court. 18 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2017. A 19 20 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 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?