Gamache v. Bylsma et al, No. 3:2015cv05154 - Document 67 (W.D. Wash. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER denying 58 Motion to Compel & 59 motion to continue, and granting 63 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. 53 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment is renoted for 7/15/2016. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(MGC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gamache v. Bylsma et al Doc. 67 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 5 6 7 CHRISTINE GAMACHE, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 CASE NO. C15-5154 BHS ORDER v. EDWARD BYLSMA, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on various motions from the parties (Dkts. 53, 14 58, 59, 63). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition 15 to the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby rules as follows: 16 17 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff Christine Gamache (“Gamache”) filed a 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 suit against Defendants Edward Bylsma, Robin Yakhour, Craig Randall, Russ 19 Bradseth, Barry Folsom, John Doe, Richard/Rachel Roe(s), and Clark County 20 (collectively “Defendants”). Dkt. 1. Gamache alleges violations of her First, Fourth, and 21 Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as § 1983 claims for wrongful arrest, malicious 22 prosecution, conspiracy, negligence, and municipal liability. Dkt. 24 (“Comp.”) ¶¶ 14– ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 52, 56–73. Gamache also brings state law claims for trespass, assault, battery, false 2 imprisonment, menacing, negligence, and interference with personal property. Id. ¶ 54. 3 On August 28, 2015, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 14. 4 Gamache did not file a response. On October 26, 2015, the Court construed Defendants’ 5 motion in part as a motion to dismiss and in part as a motion for summary judgment. 6 Dkt. 19. The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on some of Gamache’s claims 7 and granted Gamache leave to amend. Id. The Court also issued a Rand notice and 8 renoted Defendants’ summary judgment motion to November 20, 2015. Id. 9 On November 17, 2015, Gamache responded to Defendants’ summary judgment 10 motion. Dkt. 20. Gamache also filed an amended complaint on November 26, 2015. 11 Comp. On February 19, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment on Gamache’s 12 unlawful arrest claim. Dkt. 47. 13 On March 31, 2016, Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment on 14 Gamache’s remaining claims. Dkt. 53. On May 2, 2016, Gamache moved to continue 15 Defendants’ motion. Dkt. 59. On May 5, 2016, Defendants responded. Dkt. 61. 16 On May 2, 2016, Gamache moved to compel discovery. Dkt. 58. On May 3, 17 2016, Defendants responded. Dkt. 60. Gamache did not file a reply. 18 On June 2, 2016, Defendants moved for a limited extension of the discovery 19 deadline. Dkt. 63. Gamache did not file a response. 20 21 22 ORDER - 2 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 A. Gamache’s Motion to Compel 3 Gamache asks the Court to compel Defendants to disclose the identities of the 4 John Doe defendants named in Gamache’s complaint. Dkt. 58. Defendants oppose the 5 motion, arguing Gamache has not served any discovery requests or made any effort to 6 request such information from Defendants. Dkt. 60 at 2. Defendants also state that they 7 do not know the identities of the unnamed parties. Id. If an opposing party fails to respond to a discovery request, a party may file a 8 9 motion to compel disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Before doing so, the 10 requesting party must certify that she has “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer 11 with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it 12 without court action.” Id. Here, Gamache has failed to show that she has served any discovery requests on 13 14 Defendants. If no discovery request has been made, there is no basis for a motion to 15 compel. See id. It also appears that Gamache has not attempted to confer with 16 Defendants about this discovery issue. The Court therefore denies Gamache’s motion to 17 compel. 18 B. Defendants’ Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline 19 Defendants seek a limited extension of the discovery deadline to conduct 20 Gamache’s deposition on June 21, 2016. Dkt. 63. Defendants originally scheduled 21 Gamache’s deposition for May 31, 2016, Dkt. 64-1, which was the discovery deadline, 22 Dkt. 45. Gamache agreed to this date, but was unable to attend the deposition due to a ORDER - 3 1 sick child. Dkts. 64-2, 64-3. The parties agreed to reschedule her deposition for June 21, 2 2016. Dkt. 64, Declaration of Amanda Migchelbrink ¶ 10. In an email, Gamache stated 3 that she does not oppose the extension. Dkt. 64-6 at 2. 4 After reviewing Defendants’ motion, the Court finds good cause for a limited 5 extension of the discovery deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be 6 modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). The discovery deadline is 7 extended to June 21, 2016, for the purposes of conducting Gamache’s deposition. 8 C. Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment & Gamache’s Motion to Continue 9 Defendants move for summary judgment on Gamache’s remaining claims. Dkt. 10 53. Gamache, in turn, asks the Court to continue Defendants’ motion so that she may 11 obtain evidence to support her retaliation, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and 12 municipal liability claims. See Dkt. 59 at 4. Gamache did not provide a substantive 13 response to Defendants’ motion. See generally id. 14 Rule 56(d) “provides a device for litigants to avoid summary judgment when they 15 have not had sufficient time to develop affirmative evidence.” United States v. Kitsap 16 Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). To obtain a continuance, “[t]he 17 requesting party must show: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes 18 to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts 19 are essential to oppose summary judgment.” Fam. Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home 20 Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). Additionally, the requesting party 21 must show it was diligent in pursuing discovery. Pfingston v. Ronan Engineering Co., 22 ORDER - 4 1 284 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002). Failure to comply with these requirements is a 2 proper ground for denying the motion to continue and proceeding to summary judgment. 3 Fam. Home, 525 F.3d at 827; Pfingston, 284 F.3d at 1005. 4 Gamache filed the instant suit on March 13, 2015. Dkt. 1. On January 26, 2016, 5 the Court set the discovery deadline for May 31, 2016. Dkt. 45. As noted above, 6 Gamache has failed to show she served any discovery requests on Defendants during the 7 discovery period. See Dkt. 61 at 2. Gamache has also not shown that she has attempted 8 to gather the information she believes she needs to oppose Defendants’ second summary 9 judgment motion. See Dkt. 59. Although Gamache is proceeding pro se, the Court 10 notified Gamache of what she must do in order to oppose a summary judgment motion on 11 October 26, 2015. Dkt. 19 at 13 (“Gamache cannot simply rely on the assertions 12 contained in her complaint. Instead, Gamache must set out specific facts in declarations, 13 depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 14 [56(c)] . . . .”). Because Gamache has had sufficient time to conduct discovery and has 15 failed to show she has been diligent in doing so, the Court denies Gamache’s motion to 16 continue. See Pfingston, 284 F.3d at 1005. 17 Although Gamache’s motion to continue is denied, the Court will provide 18 Gamache with the opportunity to substantively respond to Defendants’ summary 19 judgment motion. Gamache’s response may include a declaration detailing her version of 20 the facts, as well as any authenticated documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Dkt. 21 19 at 12–14. Gamache may file her response no later than July 11, 2016, and shall 22 ORDER - 5 1 provide a copy of any such response to Defendants’ counsel by that date. Defendants 2 may file a reply by July 15, 2016. 3 4 II. ORDER Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Gamache’s motion to compel (Dkt. 58) 5 and motion to continue (Dkt. 59) are DENIED. Defendants’ motion for a limited 6 extension of the discovery deadline (Dkt. 63) is GRANTED. Defendants’ second motion 7 for summary judgment (Dkt. 53) is renoted for consideration on the Court’s July 15, 2016 8 calendar. 9 Dated this 17th day of June, 2016. A 10 11 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
