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

REVISED ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE & RELATED DATES - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MARVIN DAVIS and SALINA MCCOY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KING COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C02-2440RSM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE IN PART

AND SETTING NEW TRIAL

DATE & RELATED PRE-TRIAL

DEADLINES

This Matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue the Trial Date and Adjust

Remaining Pre-Trial Deadlines. (Dkt. #80). Defendants have opposed the motion in part. (Dkts. #82

and #83).

Having reviewed plaintiffs’ motion, defendants’ responses, and the remainder of the record, and

having found good cause to extend the trial date and related pre-trial deadlines, the Court does hereby

find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue the Trial Date (Dkt. #80) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court

finds good cause to extend the trial date in this case. However, the Court will amend the related pre-trial

deadlines in accordance with its own schedule, as opposed to any of plaintiffs’ proposed schedules. (See

Dkt. #80, Proposed Orders A, B and C).

In addition, because defendants have not agreed to waive a jury trial, the Court will not direct a

bench trial in this case as plaintiffs request. Furthermore, the Court will not reset the expert witnesses

deadline, as that deadline expired on November 15, 2004, while plaintiffs were still represented by

Case 2:02-cv-02440-RSM Document 87 Filed 05/20/05 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

REVISED ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE & RELATED DATES - 2

counsel. Nor will the Court direct mediation before a Magistrate Judge or set limited discovery, as

defendants have also disagreed with those requests by plaintiffs. Instead, the Court finds it more

appropriate to set the pre-trial deadlines in accordance with its standard scheduling timeline.

(2) Following are the new trial date and adjusted pre-trial deadlines. This Order completely

supercedes the Court’s previous scheduling order in this case:

NEW TRIAL DATE December 13, 2005

All motions related to discovery must be filed by

and noted on the motion calendar no later than the

third Friday thereafter (see CR7(d))

July 16, 2005

Discovery completed by August 15, 2005

All dispositive motions must be filed by

and noted on the motion calendar no later than the

fourth Friday thereafter (see CR 7(d))

September 14, 2005

Mediation per CR 39.1(c)(3) held no later than November 13, 2005

All motions in limine must be filed by

and noted on the motion calendar no later than the 

second Friday thereafter

November 15, 2005

Agreed pretrial order due December 1, 2005

Pretrial conference [to be scheduled by the Court]

Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, jury instructions, and

trial exhibits due

December 8, 2005

Length of Trial: 4-7 days Jury XXX

(3) Nothing in this Order prevents the parties from moving for relief from a specific deadline

should that become necessary at a future point in time.

(4) Representation of Plaintiffs by Counsel. In plaintiffs’ motion to continue, attorney William

Broberg noted that he was temporarily assisting plaintiffs with the instant motion, although he has

technically withdrawn from representation, but stated that if the Court were to grant this motion, he

would be willing to re-enter a Notice of Appearance, and represent plaintiffs for the duration of this

action. (Dkt. #80 at 3). Although the Court did not adopt plaintiffs’ proposed deadlines exactly, the

Court has granted an extended trial date within the time period plaintiffs sought, and the related pre-trial

Case 2:02-cv-02440-RSM Document 87 Filed 05/20/05 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

REVISED ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE & RELATED DATES - 3

deadlines are very similar to those proposed, as well. (See Dkt. #80, Proposed Orders A, B and C). 

Accordingly, attorney William Broberg is hereby directed to either re-enter a Notice of Appearance on

behalf of plaintiffs no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, or plaintiffs will proceed pro se.

Defendants have expressed their concern about Mr. Broberg’s limited representation to date,

noting that it has caused confusion over who should be served and who should be involved in discussions

regarding discovery, settlement, etc. Therefore, the Court also directs Mr. Broberg to either re-enter this

case in a fully-representative capacity, or withdraw completely, as any further “limited representation”

will not be allowed by the Court.

(5) Defendant Keller’s Request to Strike Declaration of William Broberg. The Court finds

defendant Keller’s request to strike Mr. Broberg’s Declaration in Support of the Motion to Continue now

MOOT. Although the Court agrees that much of the information contained in the declaration is irrelevant

to the Court’s determination on the instant motion, the Court did not rely on those statements when

adjusting the trial schedule and related pre-trial deadlines. Rather, the Court based its decision on its

current trial calendar and available trial dates, as well as the agreement by all of the parties that a new trial

date should be set, and certain deadlines should be extended. Accordingly, defendants were not

prejudiced by the irrelevant information contained in Mr. Broberg’s declaration.

(6) The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to plaintiffs, William Broberg, and all counsel of

record.

DATED this 20th day of May, 2005.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:02-cv-02440-RSM Document 87 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 3