ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION

EDWARD F. SHEA, Senior District Judge.

Before the Court are numerous motions by the parties as well as the issue of consolidation. The Court takes each issue in turn.

I. Consolidation of Cases

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits a court to "join for trial" or consolidate actions before the Court that "involve a common question of law or fact." On April 18, 2016, the Court requested briefing by the parties on whether consolidating these two cases was appropriate. The Court believed that given the similar questions of law and fact and the similar procedural postures, ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION — 1 consolidation was appropriate. The Defendants responded and are in favor of consolidation but request a continuance if the Court choses to do so. ECF Nos. 203 & 204. Plaintiff does not oppose consolidation but requests mediation if the Court consolidates.

Both of these cases are now past the discovery and summary judgment stages of litigation. Plaintiff in both cases alleges Eighth Amendment violations by employees of the Washington State Penitentiary. The backgrounds in these two cases are substantially the same. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court consolidates these two cases finding that both cases have similar questions of law and fact, and that judicial economy and the ends of justice are best served by combining these two cases. The Court sets new trial and pretrial dates, as well as additional deadlines below.

As to Plaintiff's request for mediation, the Court is not opposed to the idea. However, the Court will not force the parties to mediate if they do not want to participate. It is clear that the Plaintiff seeks mediation. However, the Court will order mediation only if the Defendants believe it also proper. By no later than May 31, 2016, Defendants must file a notice with the Court indicating whether they support referring this case to mediation.

II. Motion for Protective Order, Case No. 13-CV-5038, ECF No. 195

Plaintiff seeks a protective order in Troupe v. Suckow, 13-CV-5038. ECF No. 195. Plaintiff appears to seek an order requiring either that 1) Ms. Amy Clemmons be forced to remain as the attorney of record in this case or 2) bar all other attorneys for the Washington State Attorney General's office from accessing the records in this matter. As to Plaintiff's first request, Local Rule 83.2(d)(3) states: "Where there has simply been a change (withdrawal or addition) of counsel within the same law firm, and order of substitution is not required." If two attorneys practice in the same law firm, they may substitute in on a case without permission from the Court. Therefore, the Court will not force Ms. Clemmons to remain on this case if the Attorney General's Office believes it in its best interest to substitute counsel.

As to Plaintiff's privacy concerns, the Court expects that the Attorney General's Office, and all the attorneys working on this case, will take reasonable measures to protect the medical and mental health records of Plaintiff. However, the Court will not bar certain individuals who work in that office from accessing those records. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 195, is denied.

III. Motion for 25 Blank Subpoenas, Case No. 13-CV-5038, ECF No. 212

Plaintiff asks for "25 blank subpoenas for witnesses in #13-CV-5038-EFS July 18, 2016 trial" without explanation or clarification. The Court assumes that this request is in response to the Court's previous Order Regarding Plaintiff's Trial Witnesses, ECF No. 202. As the Court stated in that order, if Plaintiff wants to subpoena witnesses, "he must first file a motion with the Court clearly and specifically identifying 1) the first and last name of each witness for whom he seeks the issuance of a trial subpoena, and 2) the witness's address at which service will be effected." A motion requesting 25 blank subpoenas, more than is currently on his witness list, without explanation or clarification, does not suffice.

Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to abide by the Court's scheduling order in that his witness list, ECF No. 214, fails to "include a brief description of the witness, a brief summary of the witness' anticipated testimony, whether the witness will be called as an expert, and any known trial date/time conflicts that witness has." ECF No. 173.

For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for 25 Blank Subpoenas, ECF No. 212, is denied. If Plaintiff wants to subpoena witnesses for trial, he must file a list of witnesses with the Court clearly stating what he expects each witness to testify to and why that testimony is relevant to the narrow Eighth Amendment claims in these cases. The Court will then send the subpoenas for those witnesses and will not permit him to subpoena witnesses that have not been approved by the Court. New deadlines for witness lists are delineated below.

IV. Motion to Approve a Subpoena, Case No. 13-CV-5038, ECF No. 215

Plaintiff asks the Court to approve a discovery subpoena in Troupe v. Suckow, 13-CV-5038. ECF No. 215. The Court reminds Plaintiff that discovery in these cases has ended. All that remains for both of these cases is to prepare for trial using the discovery already obtained. No further discovery subpoenas will be approved. Only trial subpoenas will be issued and only after the requirements in the Court's orders have been met. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Subpoena, ECF No. 215, is denied.

V. Motion for Reconsideration, Case No. 13-CV-5028, ECF No. 268

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 268. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Mr. Christopher Bowman should not be dismissed from this case. Plaintiff, however, provides no new evidence or case law supporting his proposition. He simply argues that Mr. Bowman retaliated against him in a different way. As the Court stated in its order, Plaintiff has failed to show an essential element of his First Amendment retaliation claim against Mr. Bowman and therefore summary judgment is appropriate. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Case No. 13-CV-5028, ECF No. 268, is denied.

VI. Conclusion & Deadlines

The parties must carefully read the Court's prior Scheduling Order, ECF No. 173, and abide by its requirements that are not superseded by the deadlines below. The following deadlines apply to the single consolidated remaining case: Witness and Exhibit lists:

The parties do not need to refile the motions in limine they have already filed. Those will be heard at the October 4, 2016 pretrial conference. If the parties wish to file additional motions in limine, specific to the claim against Officer Brodhead, which are being consolidated into this case, they must do so by the deadlines listed above.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel and Mr. Troupe.