Slack v. Woodbury, C19-159-RSM. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20190627e14
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER (DKT. 34) BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA , Chief Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider his motion and objection regarding defense counsel's availability. Dkt. 34. The motion revolves around plaintiff's discovery requests, which he now contends he has diligently tried to resolve with defense counsel. Pursuant to Local Rule W. Wash. 7(h) the Court directs defendant to file a response no later than July 10, 2019. Any reply fr
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER (DKT. 34) BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA , Chief Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider his motion and objection regarding defense counsel's availability. Dkt. 34. The motion revolves around plaintiff's discovery requests, which he now contends he has diligently tried to resolve with defense counsel. Pursuant to Local Rule W. Wash. 7(h) the Court directs defendant to file a response no later than July 10, 2019. Any reply fro..
More
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER (DKT. 34)
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider his motion and objection regarding defense counsel's availability. Dkt. 34. The motion revolves around plaintiff's discovery requests, which he now contends he has diligently tried to resolve with defense counsel. Pursuant to Local Rule W. Wash. 7(h) the Court directs defendant to file a response no later than July 10, 2019. Any reply from plaintiff is due on July 16, 2019. Plaintiff suggests discovery in the case is off-course. The parties should thus set forth whether that is so and whether new discovery deadlines should be set.
Source: Leagle
