Preview:

1 2 3 4 5 6 LENIER AYERS, 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 11 12 file his opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkts. 59 and 60. 13 Having reviewed the motions and response of defendants (Dkt. 62), the court finds that 14 Plaintiff's motion to take discovery shall be denied, but that he shall be granted a short 15 extension of time within which to file documentary evidence in support of his response to the 16 summary judgment motion. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. 19 Mr. Ayers seeks court permission to take the electronic depositions of defendants and 20 staff witnesses "who were present during the complaint reported use of excessive and 21 22 as potential deposition witnesses. Id. Defendants object to the motion because the discovery 23 deadline has passed and they will be prejudiced by the additional discovery because they have 24 25 26
On January 6, 2010, Mr. Ayers filed an amendment to his motion, adding additional staff members of SCC as potential deposition witnesses. Dkt. 65.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA NO. C08-5541 RJB/KLS ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DEPOSE WITNESSES AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

HENRY RICHARDS, et al. Defendants.

Before the court are Plaintiff's motions to conduct depositions and to extend time to

Motion to Conduct Depositions

unnecessary force." Dkt. 59, p. 2.1

Mr. Ayers lists three defendants and two staff members

ORDER

1

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

already incurred the expense to draft and file their summary judgment motion. Dkt. 62, p. 2. Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on December 14, 2009. Dkt. 50. It is presently noted for consideration on January 8, 2010. Id. On June 15, 2009, the parties were notified by the court's entry of a Pretrial Scheduling Order that all discovery must be completed by November 7, 2009. Dkt. 41. The dispositive deadline motion was set for December 5, 2009, but was subsequently extended at the request of Defendants. Dkt. 58. Mr. Ayers did not seek an extension of the discovery deadline. In the six months following entry of the Pretrial Scheduling Order, Mr. Ayers failed to note any depositions. Dkt. 63,

Download 53715.pdf

Washington Law