Price et al v. Shell Oil Company et al

Filing 227

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 224 Motion for leave to file motions to amend complaint and take discovery. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

RACHEL A. PRICE, an individual; and
TESSA V. GEHARDT, an individual,

CASE NO. C11-1553-JCC
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12
13
14

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a
SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file motions to
amend their complaint and take discovery (Dkt. No. 224). This case was remanded from the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that a jury instruction given at trial incorrectly
stated the law. (Dkt. No. 220 at 3.) On remand, the Court set a new trial date of January 29, 2018
and stated: “No further discovery or motions practice shall be permitted.” (Dkt. No. 223 at 1.)
Plaintiffs have continued to work for Defendant since the trial, and they allege that they
have continued to experience discrimination. (Dkt. No. 224 at 2.) They wish to introduce
evidence of this new discrimination at the retrial. (Id.) Accordingly, they ask the Court for an
order granting them leave to file (1) a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and (2) a
motion for leave to take additional discovery, limited to facts and events that occurred after the

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1
2

first trial. (Id. at 1.)
Defendant opposes the motion. (Dkt. No. 225.) It argues that it would be prejudiced if it

3

were required to conduct discovery into the new allegations and try this case by January 29, only

4

seven months away. (Id. at 2.) Defendant further asserts the Ninth Circuit’s mandate was to retry

5

the case as it stood in 2014, not to try an entirely new case. (Id. at 5.)

6
7
8

The Court agrees. This case was remanded on a narrow issue. It is a retrial, not an
opportunity to reopen litigation. Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. No. 224) is DENIED.
DATED this 20th day of June, 2017.

11

A

12

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 2