1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 BARBARA DAVIS, as Personal No. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ 5 Representative of the Estate of G.B., No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ deceased, 6 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 7 CASES FOR TRIAL v. 8 JENNIFER STRUS, individually and in 9 her official capacity acting under the color of state law; HEIDI KAAS, 10 individually and in her official capacity acting under the color of state law; 11 MELISSA KEHMEIER, individually and in her official capacity acting under 12 the color of state law; JAMES DESMOND, individually and in his 13 official capacity acting under the color of state law; CASSIE ANDERSON, 14 individually and in her official capacity acting under the color of state law; 15 BRINA CARRIGAN, individually and in her official capacity acting under the 16 color of state law; MAGGIE STEWART, individually and in her 17 official capacity acting under the color of state law; LORI BLAKE, 18 individually and in her official capacity acting under the color of state law; 19 SHANNON SULLIVAN, individually and in her official capacity acting under 20 the color of state law; SUSAN STEINER, individually and in her 1 official capacity acting under the color of state law; CAMERON NORTON, 2 individually and in his official capacity acting under the color of state law; 3 SARAH OASE, individually and in her official capacity acting under the color 4 of state law; RANA PULLOM, individually and in her official capacity 5 acting under the color of state law; DONALD WILLIAMS, individually 6 and in his official capacity acting under the color of state law; CHRIS MEJIA, 7 individually and in his official capacity acting under the color of state law; 8 RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 416, a Municipal Corporation duly 9 organized and existing under the laws of Washington State; JUANITA 10 MURRAY, individually and in her official capacity acting under the color 11 of state law; ROBERTA KRAMER, individually and in her official capacity 12 acting under the color of state law; SARAH RAMSDEN, individually and 13 in her official capacity acting under the color of state law; CAROLINE 14 RAYMOND, individually and in her official capacity acting under the color 15 of state law; CHERI MCQUESTEN, individually and in her official capacity 16 acting under the color of state law; SARAH RAMSEY, individually and in 17 her official capacity acting under the color of state law; TAMI BOONE, 18 individually and in her official capacity acting under the color of state law; 19 MELISSA REED, individually and in her official capacity acting under the 20 color of state law; ANN STOPAR, individually and in her official capacity 1 acting under the color of state law; KRISTINA GRIFFITH, individually 2 and in her official capacity acting under the color of state law; WENDY 3 SUPANCHICK, individually and in her official capacity acting under the color 4 of state law; SHERRY DORNQUAST, individually and in her official capacity 5 acting under the color of state law; GARY VANDERHOLM, individually 6 and in his official capacity acting under the color of state law; ROGER PRATT, 7 individually and in his official capacity acting under the color of state law; 8 CHRIS NIEUWENHUIS, individually and in his official capacity acting under 9 the color of state law; and JOHN DOES 1–50, individually and in their official 10 capacities acting under the color of state law, 11 Defendants. 12

13 Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate 14 Matters for Trial, ECF No. 366. Plaintiff seeks to consolidate the above-captioned 15 matter with a related case also before this Court, Davis v. Washington State 16 Department of Social and Human Services, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ. 17 Id. at 1–2. The State Defendants1 filed a response indicating that the State 18 1 The State Defendants in this matter include Cassie Anderson, Lori Blake, Brina 19 Carrigan, James Desmond, Melissa Kehmeier, Chris Mejia, Cameron Norton, Sarah Oase, Rana Pullom, Susan Steiner, Maggie Stewart, Jennifer Strus, Shannon 20 Sullivan, Donald Williams. ECF No. 371. 1 Defendants in both this matter and the related case do not oppose the motion to 2 consolidate for trial. ECF No. 371. In their response, the State Defendants represent

3 that because the Estate is neither seeking to merge the two causes of action nor 4 seeking to expand the relevant factual time period or legal theories, the State 5 Defendants in both this matter and the related case do not oppose consolidation.2

6 ECF No. 371 at 3. Neither the Riverside Defendants3 nor Defendant Sherry 7 Dornquast have responded to the motion to consolidate. Having reviewed the 8 motion and the file in the matter, the Court is fully informed and grants the motion. 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the court to consolidate actions

10 where the actions “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 11 Actions need not be identical to warrant consolidation under Rule 42. Takeda v. 12 Turbodyne Techs., Inc.,

(C.D. Cal. 1999). When

13 determining whether to consolidate matters, the Court weighs “the interest in 14 judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused 15

16 2 The Court notes in Case No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ, the only Defendants are the Department of Social and Human Services (“DSHS”) and two DSHS employees, 17 and that counsel for the State Defendants in the above-captioned matter who submitted the response, Carl Warring, also represents all Defendants in the related 18 matter. See Case No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ.

19 3 The Riverside Defendants include the Riverside School District, No. 416; Tami Boone; Kristina Griffith; Roberta Kramer; Chris Nieuwenhuis; Cheri McQuesten; 20 Juanita Murray; Roger Pratt; Sarah Ramsden; Caroline Raymond; Melissa Reed; Ann Stopar; Wendy Supanchick; and Gary Vanderholm. ECF No. 350. 1 by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp.,

2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Machine Shop,

3 Inc.,

(N.D. Cal. 1989)). District courts have broad discretion 4 regarding whether to consolidate. In re Adams Apple, Inc.,

, 1487 5 (9th Cir. 1987).

6 The parties agree that the facts in the cases overlap. ECF No. 366 at 4; ECF 7 No. 371 at 2 (“In the respective joint status reports filed by the parties in anticipation 8 of the amended case scheduling orders, the Estate described its legal claims and 9 factual claims nearly identically”). The Court agrees with this assessment. Both

10 cases arise out of the sequence of events leading to minor child G.B.’s placement 11 by the Washington Department of Social and Human Services (“DSHS”) into the 12 care of his aunt, Cynthia Khaleel, his time spent in her care, and his tragic death.

13 Similarly, the parties agree the related matter asserts the same legal theories as 14 raised in the instant matter. ECF No. 366 at 2; ECF No. 371 at 3. As such, 15 consolidation for trial is appropriate. 16 The State Defendants, however, oppose consolidation for the purpose of

17 motions practice. ECF No. 371 at 2–3 n.1. Given that the dispositive motion 18 deadline in the above-captioned matter has passed while the dispositive motion 19 deadline in the related matter is set for November 10, 2020, the Court agrees

20 consolidation for the purposes of motions practice is not appropriate. Compare Case 1 No. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ, ECF No. 338 at 7 with Case No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ, 2 ECF No. 89 at 5. As such, the respective deadlines set forth in each case except

3 those related to trial, which are listed below, shall remain in effect, including 4 deadlines related to discovery, motions practice, mediation, and certification to the 5 Washington State Supreme Court.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Matters for Trial, ECF No. 366, is 8 GRANTED. 9 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CONSOLIDATE Case Nos. 2:17-

10 cv-00062-SMJ and 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ under the 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ 11 case number. All future filings for the consolidated actions shall be 12 filed under Case No. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ. The file for 2:18-cv-00194-

13 SMJ shall be CLOSED. 14 3. The following deadlines in the respective Scheduling Orders in Case 15 Nos. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ and 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ shall remain in 16 effect as to the respective claims and parties:

17 A. Mediation Deadline; 18 B. Rule 26(a)(2) Expert Identification and Reports Deadlines; 19 C. Discovery Deadlines;

20 D. Notice of To-Be-Adjudicated Claims and Affirmative Defenses 1 Deadline; 2 E. Dispositive and Daubert Motions Deadlines; and

3 F. Deadline for Certification to the State Supreme Court. 4 4. The following deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order in Case 5 No. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ shall govern in the entire consolidated

6 matter: 7 A. Witness and Exhibit Lists Deadlines; 8 B. Deposition Designations Deadlines; 9 C. Motions in Limine Deadline;

10 D. Pretrial Order Deadline; and 11 E. Trial Briefs, Vior Dire, and Jury Instructions Deadlines. 12 5. The pretrial conference for the consolidated matter shall be held at

13 11:00 A.M. on January 5, 2021, in Spokane, Washington. 14 6. The estimated 20-day JURY TRIAL shall commence at 9:00 A.M. 15 on February 1, 2022, in Spokane, Washington. The final pretrial 16 conference will begin at 8:30 A.M.

17 // 18 // 19 //

20 // 1 A, If either party believes that a longer trial will be necessary due to 2 the consolidation of these matters, the parties are directed to meet 3 and confer and file a joint status report indicating the length of 4 time needed for trial within fourteen days of the entry of this

5 Order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and

7 || provide copies to counsel for all parties. 8 DATED this 29" day of July 2020. 9 ‘exacts SALVADOR SIOZA, JR. 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES