Beaming White LLC et al v. Rabon et al

Filing 63

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

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