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

DAVID A. HANNUM and CYNTHIA L.

HANNUM, husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT

OF LICENSING, a department of the State of

Washington, LIZ LUCE, Director of the

Washington State Department of Licensing,

JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5346RJB

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT STATE OF

WASHINGTON’S

MOTION TO EXTEND

DEADLINES AND RENOTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the court on Defendant State of Washington’s Motion to Extend

Deadlines (Dkt. 15). The court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition

to the motion and the file herein.

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Pending before the court are the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 12) and

the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 17). The plaintiffs also move for partial

summary judgment in their response, raising arguments that are substantially identical to those

contained in the motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 19). The defendants’ reply does not

address this portion of the response. This motion is not noted in accordance with Local Rule CR

7(d)(3). Because the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs’ cross motion

for partial summary judgment address the same issues, they should be noted for consideration at

the same time. The court should therefore re-note the defendants’ motion for consideration

concurrent with the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Case 3:06-cv-05346-RJB Document 26 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 2
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

The defendants seek an extension of the deadlines for the discovery conference, initial

disclosures, and joint status report in order to “conserve resources of the parties.” Dkt. 15 at 2.

Specifically, they would like the deadlines reset for thirty days after the court issues its order on

the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because a judgment in their favor would render

discovery unnecessary. Counsel for the defendants conferred with plaintiffs’ counsel to seek a

stipulation but did not receive a response. Dkt. 16 at 1-2.

The plaintiffs filed a response opposing the motion. They contend that the defendants are

still fully capable of complying with the deadlines despite the pendency of the motions for

summary judgment and that a delay would not preserve their resources. The plaintiffs do not

contend that a delay would be prejudicial, and the affidavits supporting the response seek

additional time for discovery. Dkt. 21 at 6, Dkt. 22 at 2. The court should therefore grant the

motion and extend the deadlines.

II. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED Defendant State of Washington’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 12)

is RE-NOTED for consideration on September 29, 2006. Defendant State of Washington’s

Motion to Extend Deadlines (Dkt. 15) is GRANTED as follows: (1) The FRCP 26f Conference

Deadline is 10/11/2006. (2) The Initial Disclosure Deadline is 10/18/2006; and (3) The Joint

Status Report is due by 10/25/2006.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 8th day of September, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05346-RJB Document 26 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 2