United States of America et al v. CH2M Hill

Filing 67

ORDER granting Beck's 51 Motion to continue trial and related dates; trial set for 10/2/17; parties to submit a report on status of mediation by 3/1/17 by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.,
TOM BECK,

10
11
12

Case No. C13-787-RAJ

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
CH2M HILL,

13

Defendant.

14
I.

15
16

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff/Relator Tom Beck’s Motion to

17

Continue the Trial and Related Dates. Dkt. # 51. For the reasons that follow, the Court

18

GRANTS Beck’s motion.
II. BACKGROUND

19
20

The Court has described the allegations in this action in a previous order.

21

Dkt. # 47. In short, Beck alleges that Defendant CH2M Hill (“CH2M”) made false

22

claims for payment to the U.S. Air Force in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.

23

§ 3279. Filed under seal in May 2013, the complaint was unsealed in April 2015 after a

24

two-year investigation by the Government, which declined to intervene. Dkt. ## 1, 21.

25

Discovery commenced shortly thereafter. On July 27, 2015, the Court entered a

26

scheduling order setting a trial date and pretrial deadlines. Dkt. # 34. On July 30, 2015,

27

Beck served his first set of discovery requests. Although CH2M began taking steps

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

toward producing responsive documents, it halted this process in November 2015 when it
decided to file a motion to dismiss. Beck did not agree to a stay of discovery during the
pendency of the motion to dismiss. The parties submitted a joint submission outlining
their positions on whether discovery should be stayed. Dkt. # 43. On March 10, 2016,
the Court granted in part and denied in part CH2M’s motion to dismiss, and denied as
moot CH2M’s request to stay discovery. Dkt. # 47.
CH2M promptly resumed its document collection process. On May 3, 2016, the
parties reached an agreement concerning the search terms that CH2M would use to gather
responsive documents. On May 20, 2016, CH2M produced an initial set of documents.
On June 27, 2016, it produced a much larger set consisting of approximately 54,000
documents and amounting to more than 300,000 pages. Over the following months, the
parties continued to engage in discovery.
Now, Beck seeks to continue trial, which is scheduled to commence on May 8,
2017, until October 30, 2017. Dkt. # 51. CH2M opposes the motion. Dkt. # 54.
III. LEGAL STANDARD

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 permits the Court to modify a case schedule
“only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard primarily
considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment of the deadlines. Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A party demonstrates
good cause for the modification of a scheduling order by showing that, even with the
exercise of due diligence, he or she was unable to meet the timetable set forth in the
order. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).
IV. DISCUSSION

23
24
25
26
27
28

Beck has established good cause for modifying the case schedule. He diligently
served his first set of discovery requests in July 2015, yet did not receive the bulk of
responsive documents until June 2016. The substantial intervening period between
request and production was due in large part to CH2M’s unilateral decision to suspend
ORDER – 2

1
2
3
4

discovery pending the resolution of its own motion to dismiss. This decision—which
Beck actively opposed and was not endorsed by the Court—delayed discovery from
November 2015 until March 2016. Beck is entitled to a corresponding continuance of
trial and related pretrial deadlines.
V. CONCLUSION

5
6
7
8
9
10

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Beck’s Motion to Continue the
Trial and Related Dates. Dkt. # 51. The Court sets trial to begin on October 2, 2017.
The Court will enter a subsequent order rescheduling all related pretrial deadlines.
Without disclosing the details of any settlement discussions, the Court further ORDERS
the parties to submit a report on the status of mediation by March 1, 2017.

11
12

DATED this 13th day of February, 2017.

A

13
14

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

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

ORDER – 3