Luke v. The City of Tacoma et al

Filing 95

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 Motion for Summary Judgment; Frank Krause terminated. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6

CASE NO. C18-5245 BHS

ROBERT H. LUKE,
7
Plaintiff,
8
9

v.

ORDER ON PARTIES’ JOINT
STATUS REPORT

THE CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal
corporation, et al.,

10
Defendants.
11
12
13
14

This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s order requesting a joint status
report (“JSR”), Dkt. 91, and the parties’ JSR, Dkt. 94.
Relevant here, on October 31, 2019, Defendants moved for a protective order.

15

Dkt. 52. On December 6, 2019, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 58. On

16

December 30, 2019, Plaintiff requested that the Court deny the motion for protective

17

order, compel discovery, and permit him to supplement the record; Plaintiff also

18

responded substantively to the summary judgment motion. Dkt. 64. Also on December

19

30, 2019, as well as on January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed motions to compel. Dkts. 74, 77.

20

On January 14, 2020, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion for

21

protective order, Dkt. 52, and discussed Plaintiff’s related motions to compel, Dkts. 74,

22

77. Dkt. 86. The Court instructed the parties to meet and confer.

ORDER - 1

1

On April 3, 2020, the Court requested a JSR from the parties updating the Court

2

on the status of the outstanding discovery and requesting that the parties address what

3

issues on summary judgment the Court may resolve without the discovery. Dkt. 91. On

4

April 24, 2020, the parties filed a JSR notifying the Court that they have been proceeding

5

with discovery and disagree as to the completeness of the discovery provided and as to

6

whether additional discovery is necessary relative to the pending motion for summary

7

judgment but agree that Plaintiff may conduct four additional depositions. Dkt. 94 at 1–2.

8

The parties agree that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Frank Krause may be

9

dismissed on the pending motion for summary judgment. Id. at 4.

10

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary

11

judgment, Dkt. 58, is GRANTED as to Defendant Frank Krause per stipulation of the

12

parties and DENIED without prejudice as to the remainder of the motion. Defendants

13

may either renote the existing motion to a later date to accommodate the agreed-upon

14

discovery or may file a new motion once the agreed-upon discovery has been completed.

15

The Clerk shall terminate Defendant Frank Krause as a party. The parties may contact the

16

Courtroom Deputy to schedule a new trial date.

17

Dated this 27th day of April, 2020.

A

18
19

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 2