-
Order | Filed: October 06, 2026
| Entered: October 06, 2026
Dennis v. Pacific Seafood
Personal Injury: Other | Oregon
Order on Motion to Compel
ORDER: Plaintiffs' motion to compel a Rule 26(f) conference is DENIED. (ECF 35 ) in case 3:25-cv-01921-AR.
In October 2025, the court issued a Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order that required the parties to confer and prepare a discovery plan within 30 days of defendant Pacific Seafood filing a responsive pleading in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). (ECF 2 .) Plaintiffs consolidated and amended their complaint in December (ECFs 10 , 13 ), and Pacific Seafood moved to dismiss on January 30, 2026 (ECF 19 ). Two weeks later, on February 13, 2026, the parties jointly moved for an extension of the court's discovery and pretrial deadlines. (ECF 23 .) That motion reflected the Rule 26(f) deadline set by the court as within 30 days of Pacific Seafood's responsive pleading. The parties, together, asked the court to "vacate all deadlines in the operative Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order" and set a Rule 16 conference within 30 days of a ruling on the motion to dismiss so they could "jointly propose a case schedule tailored to the particular facts and needs of this case, including a schedule for discovery, class certification briefing, expert discovery, and dispositive motion practice." (Joint. Mot. Extension Time, ECF 23 at 3-4.) The court, in granting that motion, held that the deadlines set in "the court's Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order on 10/20/2025 [were] vacated and [would] be reset after final ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss." (ECF 24 .)
Now, plaintiffs argue that Pacific Seafood's "refusal" to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference amounts to a unilateral stay of discovery. (Mot. Compel, ECF 35 at 2.) Pacific Seafood responds that the language in the joint motion and the court's order granting that motion is categorical and does not preserve a Rule 26(f) deadline. (Resp., ECF 37 at 2.) The court agrees with Pacific Seafood. Under the motion and the order's plain language, all discovery deadlines were vacated, including the deadline to confer per Rule 26(f). Plaintiffs cannot "selectively revive a single obligation they now regret conceding." (Id. at 3.)
The court issued its Findings & Recommendation on September 30, 2026. Following Judge Immergut's ruling on the F&R, the parties should confer and prepare a discovery plan and case management schedule. The court will schedule a Rule 16 conference within 30 days of Judge Immergut's ruling.
Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead. Associated Cases: 3:25-cv-01921-AR, 3:25-cv-01923-AR, 3:25-cv-01935-AR, 3:25-cv-01944-AR, 3:25-cv-01946-AR, 3:25-cv-01954-AR, 3:25-cv-01971-AR, 3:25-cv-01995-AR (ecp)
-
Order | Filed: October 06, 2026
| Entered: October 06, 2026
Lester v. Pacific Seafood
Personal Injury: Other | Oregon
Order on Motion to Compel
ORDER: Plaintiffs' motion to compel a Rule 26(f) conference is DENIED. (ECF 35 ) in case 3:25-cv-01921-AR.
In October 2025, the court issued a Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order that required the parties to confer and prepare a discovery plan within 30 days of defendant Pacific Seafood filing a responsive pleading in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). (ECF 2 .) Plaintiffs consolidated and amended their complaint in December (ECFs 10 , 13 ), and Pacific Seafood moved to dismiss on January 30, 2026 (ECF 19 ). Two weeks later, on February 13, 2026, the parties jointly moved for an extension of the court's discovery and pretrial deadlines. (ECF 23 .) That motion reflected the Rule 26(f) deadline set by the court as within 30 days of Pacific Seafood's responsive pleading. The parties, together, asked the court to "vacate all deadlines in the operative Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order" and set a Rule 16 conference within 30 days of a ruling on the motion to dismiss so they could "jointly propose a case schedule tailored to the particular facts and needs of this case, including a schedule for discovery, class certification briefing, expert discovery, and dispositive motion practice." (Joint. Mot. Extension Time, ECF 23 at 3-4.) The court, in granting that motion, held that the deadlines set in "the court's Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order on 10/20/2025 [were] vacated and [would] be reset after final ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss." (ECF 24 .)
Now, plaintiffs argue that Pacific Seafood's "refusal" to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference amounts to a unilateral stay of discovery. (Mot. Compel, ECF 35 at 2.) Pacific Seafood responds that the language in the joint motion and the court's order granting that motion is categorical and does not preserve a Rule 26(f) deadline. (Resp., ECF 37 at 2.) The court agrees with Pacific Seafood. Under the motion and the order's plain language, all discovery deadlines were vacated, including the deadline to confer per Rule 26(f). Plaintiffs cannot "selectively revive a single obligation they now regret conceding." (Id. at 3.)
The court issued its Findings & Recommendation on September 30, 2026. Following Judge Immergut's ruling on the F&R, the parties should confer and prepare a discovery plan and case management schedule. The court will schedule a Rule 16 conference within 30 days of Judge Immergut's ruling.
Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead. Associated Cases: 3:25-cv-01921-AR, 3:25-cv-01923-AR, 3:25-cv-01935-AR, 3:25-cv-01944-AR, 3:25-cv-01946-AR, 3:25-cv-01954-AR, 3:25-cv-01971-AR, 3:25-cv-01995-AR (ecp)
- 1243 additional result(s)