Gibson v. Washington State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Patrick Gibson, Prisoner ID: 992321)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 PATRICK K GIBSON, 11 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DENYING MOTION v. 12 CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05187-RBL-DWC G. STEVEN HAMMOND, DALE FETROE, EDITH KROHA, 14 Defendants. 15 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 16 17 Judge David W. Christel. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Patrick K. Gibson’s “Motion for 18 Injunctive Order Against Defendant Edith Kroha and Representative Counsel Daniel Judge” 19 (“Motion”). Dkt. 21. In the Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court compel non-perjured discovery 20 responses. Id. Plaintiff also asks that the Court refer the matter of whether Defendant Kroha 21 committed perjury in her interrogatory responses to the United States Attorney for the Western 22 District of Washington. Id. As Plaintiff is requesting the Court compel different discovery 23 responses, the Court interprets the Motion as a motion to compel, not a motion for injunctive 24 relief. ORDER DENYING MOTION - 1 1 After review of the Motion and relevant record, the Court concludes Plaintiff failed to 2 comply with Rule 37. Further, the Court declines to refer this matter to the United States 3 Attorney for the Western District of Washington. Accordingly, the Motion (Dkt. 21) is denied. 4 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1): 5 . . . 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 or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action. 6 7 8 See also Dkt. 17; LCR 37(a)(1). Additionally, the Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and Scheduling 9 Order Pursuant to Amended General Order 09-16, entered on June 6, 2017, states: 10 11 12 13 A good faith effort to confer with a party or person not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conference. If unable to resolve their differences, the party filing the discovery motion must, either within the motion to compel or in a separate affidavit attached to the motion to compel, list the date, manner, and participants to the conference. If the moving party fails to include such a certification, the court may deny the motion without addressing the merits of the dispute. 14 Dkt. 17, p. 4. 15 Here, Plaintiff is moving for a Court order compelling Defendant Kroha to amend her 16 interrogatory answers because he believes the answers are incorrect. See Dkt. 21, 23. Plaintiff, 17 however, failed to certify he conferred or attempted to confer with Defendants’ counsel 18 regarding the discovery dispute. See id. While Plaintiff sent letters to Defendants’ counsel 19 regarding the interrogatory response in question, Plaintiff did not indicate he was attempting to 20 confer with counsel regarding any dispute. See Dkt. 21, pp. 18-19. Further, Plaintiff has not 21 certified that a telephonic or in-person conference occurred or was requested. See Dkt. 21, 23. 22 Therefore, Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 37 or the Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and 23 Scheduling Order Pursuant to Amended General Order 09-16. 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION - 2 1 The Court also declines to refer a factual discovery dispute to the United States Attorney 2 for the Western District of Washington. If Plaintiff believes a crime has been committed, he may 3 contact the appropriate authorities. 4 As Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 37 and as the Court will not refer this matter to 5 the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington for criminal investigation, the 6 Motion (Dkt. 21) is denied. 7 Dated this 28th day of November, 2017. A 8 9 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION - 3

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?