01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO USE

RECORDS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

TOMAS AFEWORKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE THOMPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0628-MJP-MAT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO USE RECORDS;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Defendants have filed a motion to use certain records and to file those records under seal.

(Dkt. #33). Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel

discovery. (Dkt. #42). Defendants need not file a response to plaintiff’s motion as the court

addresses it below. Having considered the motions and the balance of the record, the court does

hereby find and Order as follows:

(1) Defendants’ unopposed motion to use certain records and file them under seal

(Dkt. #33) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall seal the exhibits attached to the declarations of David

Oster (Dkt. #38) and Eileen Diemert (Dkt. #36).

(2) Plaintiff has had at least five months, since the court issued the Pretrial Order on

Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 43 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1

 Plaintiff signed the certificate of service accompanying his motion to compel on February

16, 2007. Although the motion was not received by the court until February 28, 2007, under the

“prison mailbox rule,” a document submitted by a prisoner is deemed to be filed the day the

document is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Accordingly, the motion to compel is deemed filed on February 16, 2007.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO USE

RECORDS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY

PAGE -2

October 6, 2006, to conduct discovery or bring any discovery disputes to the court’s attention.

The court previously granted plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery until February 9, 2007. (Dkt.

#30). In arguing against the extension, defendants pointed out that plaintiff had yet to conduct

any discovery in the case. (Dkt. #29 at 1). However, in recognition of plaintiff’s pro se status,

the court granted plaintiff additional time to collect evidence to support his claims. (Dkt. #30 at

1). When the court granted this extension, the court advised plaintiff that no further extensions

of time would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. (Id. at 2).

The record shows that on February 2, 2007, plaintiff learned from counsel for defendants

that defendants would not comply with his request for oral depositions, the dispute that plaintiff

now wishes the court to address. (Dkt. #42, Ex. H). Yet plaintiff waited until February 16, 2007

– one week after the discovery deadline had elapsed – to file the instant motion to compel. 1

Accordingly, because it was filed after the already-extended deadline for discovery had elapsed,

plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. #42) is untimely and therefore is DENIED.

(3) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and

to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2007.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00628-MJP Document 43 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2