1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CALVIN ROUSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5183RJB/JKA

ORDER STAYING THIS CASE,

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION

OF TIME TO RESPOND TO A

MOTION TO COMPEL, AND

REMOVING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT FROM THE

COURT’S CALENDAR UNTIL

AFTER THIS DISCOVERY

DISPUTE HAS BEEN

ADDRESSED

This Civil Rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, has been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

There is an ongoing discovery dispute in this action that must be addressed prior to the court

considering defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt # 71). The discovery cutoff in this action was

January 25, 2008 (Dkt. # 62, scheduling order). This means that for discovery to have been timely, it had

to have been received by December 26, 2007. A possible exception to the December 26, 2007, cutoff date

Case 3:06-cv-05183-RJB Document 76 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

might be if the discovery was an item re-sent curing an error in discovery that had been sent earlier.

In September of 2007, plaintiff sent a first set of interrogatories to counsel. The discovery was not

addressed to any specific party. Counsel returned the discovery with a letter dated October, 11, 2007,

(Dkt. # 64, exhibits).

According to plaintiff, he resubmitted the first set of interrogatories November 27, 2007, addressed

to defendant Waddington (Dkt. # 64, exhibit declaration of plaintiff). A second set of interrogatories and

requests for production was apparently sent after the December 26, 2007, date (Dkt. # 72, attachment B). 

The court cannot tell from the record if this set of discovery merely identified a party and was related to

earlier discovery or if this requested of discovery was untimely.

In January of 2008, plaintiff moved to compel discovery and the court ruled the parties had not

properly conferred (Dkt. # 64 and 69). The motion was denied without prejudice and with leave to renew

after the parties had conferred. 

The file now contains a renewed motion to compel, (Dkt # 74), a motion to stay the action, (Dkt #

72), a motion from defendants for an extension of time to respond to the motion to compel (Dkt. # 75),

and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 71). 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, (Dkt # 74), and motion to stay, (Dkt # 72), were apparently not

properly served on defense counsel. Plaintiff is warned that all papers he sends to this court for

consideration must be properly served on opposing counsel or they will not be considered.

Having reviewed the file the court now ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action, (Dkt # 72), is GRANTED. The action

is now STAYED. The parties are to file no further motions or papers

except as noted below. The filing of other papers may result in sanctions.

2. Defendant’s motion to extend time to file a response to plaintiff’s motion to

compel, (Dkt # 75), is GRANTED. The court orders defendants to

include in their response a complete copy of every discovery request

made in this action and the responses thereto. Further, the court

requires copies of all correspondence between plaintiff and counsel

regarding discovery. Each document should be dated when it was

received or sent. The response to the motion to compel is due April 18,

2008.

3. The court directs both plaintiff and defendant’s counsel to read Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37 (4) (A), (B), and (C). The parties have been given an

opportunity to resolve this dispute and have failed to do so.

4. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendant’s response to the motion to compel. 

Case 3:06-cv-05183-RJB Document 76 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 3

The reply will be due on or before April 25, 2008.

5. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. # 70 and 71), will not be

considered until after the court rules on the pending discovery dispute and

considers the issue of costs and sanctions. The clerk is directed to remove

the motion for summary judgment from the court’s calendar.

6. The court will issue an order regarding this discovery dispute. In that order

Plaintiff will be given a date to file a response to the pending motion for

summary judgment and defendants will be given an opportunity to reply. 

The summary judgment will be re-noted by the court.

7. When the court considers the issuance of costs or sanctions under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37 (4), the party against whom the award is considered will be given

an opportunity to address the court. 

8. The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and counsel for

defendants, remove Dkt. # 70, 71, 72, 74, and 75 from the court’s calendar,

and note the April 25, 2008, date as the date for consideration of the motion

to compel (Dkt. # 74).

DATED this 25 day of March 2008.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05183-RJB Document 76 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 3