Johnny McMurry, Jr. v. Neiders Company LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington resolves the parties' remaining motions in Johnny McMurry Jr.'s employment discrimination action against Neiders Company LLC. The court denies or strikes the pending motions, declines to impose sanctions without prejudice, and orders the parties to submit a joint status report concerning scheduling; only McMurry's retaliation claims remain.

Holdings

1. Discovery requests must not be filed on the docket unless they are used in the proceedings or the court orders their filing.
2. A motion to compel may be denied when the movant agreed to pause discovery, failed to certify a good-faith conference, or served interrogatories exceeding the applicable limit without stipulation or court leave.
3. A party seeking expedited discovery must show good cause to depart from the standard pretrial schedule.
4. A motion for judicial notice must comply with Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and identify the particular facts not subject to reasonable dispute; it cannot be used as a substitute for discovery.
5. Consolidation requires actions involving a common question of law or fact and compliance with the applicable local-rule conferral requirement.
6. Supplemental pleadings under Rule 15(d) may address later-occurring transactions, occurrences, or events, but may not be used to add claims against nonparties.
7. Reconsideration requires a showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority that could not previously have been presented with reasonable diligence.
8. The court may impose sanctions under its inherent authority and Rule 11, but declined to impose sanctions at this stage while cautioning that continued procedural violations could result in sanctions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McMurry's motions for discovery and to compel should be granted despite filing discovery requests on the docket, agreeing to pause discovery, failing to certify a good-faith conference, and exceeding the interrogatory limit.
2. Whether McMurry established good cause for expedited discovery.
3. Whether McMurry satisfied the requirements for judicial notice and consolidation.
4. Whether McMurry could supplement his complaint with claims concerning conduct by a nonparty.
5. Whether Neiders established manifest error or newly available facts or authority warranting reconsideration of the case reassignment.
6. Whether the court should impose sanctions for alleged procedural violations and misrepresentations.

Disposition

other