Kumar et al v. Entezar et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 78 Joint Motion for extension of time by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
_______________________________________
)
DAVID KUMAR, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
WADE M. ENTEZAR, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C11-1082RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME

14

This matter comes before the Court on the “Joint Motion by Defendants for Partial
15

Relief From Portions of the Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report and Early
16

Settlement.” Dkt. # 78. The moving defendants, Van der Merwe and Entezar, seek an indefinite
17

continuance of the initial disclosure deadlines because (a) they no longer have possession of
18

some of their business records and (b) they intend to file additional motions to dismiss which
19

may narrow the scope of this litigation. On April 25, 2012, plaintiffs and the Van der Merwe
20

defendants filed a joint status report as required by the Court’s March 14, 2012 order: the
21

Entezar and Baydovskiy defendants did not join in the report.
22

Having reviewed the memoranda and declaration submitted by the parties and the
23

remainder of the record, the Court finds as follows:
24

(1) Defendants’ motion is not supported by a declaration or other admissible evidence.
25

The Court takes judicial notice of its own docket, but otherwise discounts the factual averments
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

in the moving papers.
(2) Even if the Court assumes that “nearly all” of defendants’ documents are being held
by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), defendants have not shown good cause for their failure to
timely approach the DOJ to get copies of responsive materials. The obligation to make initial
disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) should not have come as a surprise to defendants,
especially when the Court gave them more than a month’s notice of the date on which they were
due. Having failed to make any attempt to obtain a copy of the documents (and having
completely failed in their burden of proof), the Court finds that defendants were not diligent in
complying with the case management deadlines.
(3) Defendants also seek an indefinite stay of this case to give them time to file
additional motions to dismiss and have them resolved by the Court before discovery begins. The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide an automatic stay of the initial disclosures if a
potentially dispositive motion is filed or, as in this case, contemplated. Such motions are often
unsuccessful and an improvident stay would cause unnecessary and significant delays at the
outset of the litigation. In the case at hand, defendants have not explained why the anticipated
motions have not yet been filed. In the absence of a pending motion, the Court is unable to
evaluate the merits of the dispositive arguments and is unwilling to derail the case simply
because defendants might seek relief.1
(4) Plaintiffs correctly filed the Verified Amended Derivative Complaint as directed by
the Court. The RICO claim against the Van der Merwe defendants has been and remains
dismissed.

22
23
24
25
26

1

Defendants have not shown that initial disclosures will cause it annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or that it is otherwise entitled to a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1).
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for an extension of time is
DENIED. The Entezar defendants shall make their initial disclosures as soon as practicable, but
no later than (a) seven days from the date of this Order with regards to all documents currently in
their possession and (b) fourteen days from the date of this Order with regards to documents held
by the DOJ. If additional time is needed to obtain documents from DOJ, defendants shall file a
motion for extension of time on or before May 3, 2012, including supporting declarations
detailing the efforts they have made to work with the DOJ. The Court will use the status report
filed by plaintiffs and the Van der Merwe defendants to establish a case management schedule.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2012.

10
11

A
Robert S. Lasnik

12

United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME

-3-