Pena et al v. Clark County

Filing 41

MINUTE ORDER denying Parties' 40 Stipulated Motion to Allow Depositions Out of Time and Extension of Written Discovery Responses. Authorized by U.S. District Judge David G Estudillo.(MW)

Case 3:21-cv-05411-DGE Document 41 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11
12
13

ELIAS PENA,
v.

CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05411-DGE
Plaintiffs,

MINUTE ORDER

ISAIAH HUTSON,

14

Defendant.

15
16
17
18

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, United States District
Judge David G. Estudillo:
The parties stipulated motion and proposed order for an extension of discovery and the

19

dispositive deadline is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 40.) Strict adherence to deadlines is crucial for the

20

Court’s case management. “In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts [in the federal system]

21

routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of

22

cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken seriously by the parties,

23
24
MINUTE ORDER - 1

Case 3:21-cv-05411-DGE Document 41 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 2

1

and the best way to encourage that is to enforce the deadlines.” Wong v. Regents of Univ. of

2

California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005).

3

The parties filed their motion on the last day of discovery. The stipulation does not

4

identify who the listed witnesses are, what information they might possess, and why their

5

depositions are necessary. The stipulation also fails to identify when the depositions were

6

requested and when the attorneys received responses regarding the witnesses’ availability. Aside

7

from the general assertion that the parties could not complete depositions “because of pre-

8

existing work, travel commitments, and jury service,” the stipulation does not explain why the

9

parties failed to meet the deadline previously extended by the Court at the parties’ request.

10

There are six Plaintiffs’ attorneys and two attorneys representing Defendant. It remains unclear

11

why these attorneys could not have covered in the case of one attorney’s absence. Good cause to

12

modify the current case schedule and to extend previously agreed to deadlines has not been

13

shown.

14

Therefore, the Court DENIES the Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order (Dkt. No. 40).

15

Dated this 18th day of January 2023.

16

The foregoing Minute Order authorized by THE HONORABLE DAVID G.

17

ESTUDILLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MINUTE ORDER - 2