INGENCO Holdings, LLC, et al et al v. ACE American Insurance Company

Filing 289

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 282 Motion to Continue. This matter remains set for trial to begin on 1/9/2023. All other pretrial deadlines remain intact. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SS)

Case 2:13-cv-00543-RAJ Document 289 Filed 12/29/22 Page 1 of 3

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

INGENGCO HOLDINGS LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 2:13-cv-00543-RAJ

v.

ORDER

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

16
17

I.

18

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to continue the trial date. Dkt.

19
20

INTRODUCTION

# 282.

21

II. BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiffs move to continue the current trial date. Dkt. # 282. They argue a

23

continuance is necessary to address the potential impact of trial disclosures on a

24

settlement agreement between Plaintiff BEW and third-party intervenor Guild Associates,

25

Inc. (“Guild”). Id.
III. DISCUSSION

26
27
28

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for
ORDER – 1

Case 2:13-cv-00543-RAJ Document 289 Filed 12/29/22 Page 2 of 3

1

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth

2

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). “Good cause” to modify the

3

scheduling order exists if the moving party shows that, even with the exercise of due

4

diligence, it was unable to meet the timetable set forth in the order. Id. at 609. Although

5

the existence of prejudice to the opposing party might supply additional reasons to deny

6

amendment under Rule 16, the focus of the inquiry is on the moving party’s reasons for

7

seeking modification. Id. “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.

8

Furthermore, Local Civil Rule 7(j) cautions that “whenever possible,” a motion for relief

9

from a deadline should “be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court

10

to rule on the motion prior to the deadline.”
As the moving party, Plaintiffs have “the burden of demonstrating good cause to

11
12

continue trial,” but they have failed to meet that burden. White v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL

13

596407, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 28, 2022). First, Plaintiffs do not indicate that they are

14

unable to comply with the current scheduling order and trial date. See Dkt. # 282 at 10

15

(“The requested continuance is not being made because Plaintiffs are unprepared for

16

trial.”). Rather, Plaintiffs are concerned over whether potential disclosures of confidential

17

information at trial will violate a 2017 settlement agreement between BEW and Guild. Id.

18

Chief Judge Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has

19

expressly retained jurisdiction to resolve any disputes under the Settlement Agreement.

20

Id. at 8. According to their motion, Plaintiffs intend to seek declaratory relief from Chief

21

Judge Marbley regarding the respective rights and obligations of BEW and Guild under

22

the Settlement Agreement and how that impacts their trial conduct in this matter. Id. at

23

10.

24

Plaintiffs have not provided any justification for waiting until the eve of trial to

25

seek this relief. This Court issued an order requiring the parties to meet and confer on

26

“procedures to protect … sealed trade secret information at trial” back in March 2022.

27

Dkt. # 197 at 2. In the ninth months since that order, Plaintiffs could have moved for

28

ORDER – 2

Case 2:13-cv-00543-RAJ Document 289 Filed 12/29/22 Page 3 of 3

1

declaratory relief before Chief Judge Marbley. This is precisely the kind of poor case

2

management that “Rule 16 is designed to eliminate.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610.

3

Additionally, Plaintiffs have not shown that the mere possibility of future litigation in

4

separate matter constitutes “good cause” for continuing the trial date. For these reasons,

5

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
IV. CONCLUSION

6
7

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. # 282.

8

This matter remains set for trial to begin on January 9, 2023. All other pretrial deadlines

9

remain intact.

10
11

DATED this 29th day of December, 2022.

A

12
13

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 3