Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
BEAMING WHITE LLC, LUIS LAJOUS, CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05858-DWC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL v. JASON RABON, SHANON RABON,
WHITEN MY SMILE NOW, VISION
MARKETING CONSULTANTS, INC.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged trademark and copyright infringement by Defendants. The parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. §636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; Local Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13; Dkt. 11, Joint Status Report; Dkt. 12, Minute Order on Consent. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Certification, and Memorandum (“Motion to Compel”). Dkt. 35.
On May 17, 2017, the Court held a telephone conference, wherein the Court reserved ruling on the Motion to Compel. See Dkt. 42. The parties filed several status reports on the ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL - 1
*2 Motion to Compel, see Dkt. 49, 51, 52, 57, 62, and, on September 12, 2017, the Court issued an Order directing the parties to file a joint status report on or before September 29, 2017 regarding the Motion to Compel. Dkt. 60. The Court notified the parties that if they were still engaged in the discovery process at that time, the Court would enter an order denying without prejudice the Motion to Compel.
The parties filed a joint status report on September 29, 2017. Dkt. 62. The parties both agree they are still engaged in the discovery process. Id . Plaintiffs state they are continuing to wait for Defendants to supplement their responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and, therefore, some pretrial deadlines may need to be extended. Id . at p. 2. They also request the Motion to Compel be held in abeyance because the parties are still engaged in the discovery process. Id . at p. 3. Defendants request the Motion to Compel be denied without prejudice because the parties are still engaged in discovery. Id .
After consideration of the September 2017 Joint Status Report and the relevant record, the Motion to Compel (Dkt. 35) is denied without prejudice. If the parties cannot resolve the discovery matters, a motion to compel may be filed after the parties have complied with Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, if the parties determine an extension of time of any pretrial deadline is necessary, a motion must be filed with the Court.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 2017.
A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL - 2