KIMANI v. BETHESDA LUTHERAN COMMUNITIES

No. C16-0992RSL.

GRACE KIMANI, Plaintiff, v. BETHESDA LUTHERAN COMMUNITIES, Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Grace Kimani, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Van Siclen , VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS.

Grace Kimani, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Messplay , VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS.

Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda C. Van Wieren , OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC, pro hac vice, Jennifer A. Nelson , OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC, pro hac vice & Adam T. Pankratz , OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART.


ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant's "Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash." Dkt. # 31. The motion is DENIED. Defendant has no right to take plaintiff's deposition before producing its own witnesses. To the extent plaintiff agreed to that procedure, she made a good faith effort to provide testimony before the dates on which defendant's witnesses are to be deposed. Plaintiff waited over two and a half months to have the June 12th and 13th deposition dates confirmed. In light of the upcoming discovery deadline, there is no reason to delay longer.1

FootNotes


1. Defendant's objection to the failure to provide witness fees does not justify emergency relief: that failure was apparent on May 26, 2017, and should have been timely raised so that plaintiff had an opportunity to respond and/or rectify the oversight.

Nor does defendant's assertion that the Amended Complaint is vague require a protective order. At present, plaintiff has not alleged a retaliation claim in this litigation, and defendant may prepare its witnesses accordingly. Relevance is not an appropriate grounds for refusing to answer a question at deposition, however. The objection "must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). If, based on the evidence obtained, a retaliation claim can be properly alleged, plaintiff may move to modify the case management deadlines under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and amend her complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases