Rollins et al v. Traylor Bros Inc et al
Filing
199
ORDER granting in part Defendants' 180 Motion to Continue Trial. Jury Trial is set for 11/27/2017 at 09:30 AM before U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour; 39.1 mediation to be completed by 10/20/2017, Discovery completed by 7/21/2017, Dispositive motions due by 8/21/2017. 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
LEONARD ROLLINS, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. C14-1414-JCC
ORDER
v.
11
12
TRAYLOR BROS INC, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to continue trial (Dkt. No.
15
16
180). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds
17
oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS IN PART the motion for the reasons explained
18
herein.
19
I.
BACKGROUND
20
The Court has stated the factual background of this case in prior orders and they will not
21
be repeated here. Of relevance, however are (1) the complaint was filed on September 13, 2014,
22
(2) there are 20 Plaintiffs, and 19 of them have been deposed, (3) the current discovery deadline
23
is June 23, 2017, (4) the current dispositive motion deadline is July 24, 2017, and (5) trial is set
24
for October 23, 2017.
25
//
26
//
ORDER
PAGE - 1
1
II.
DISCUSSION
2
A.
Legal Standard
3
Case schedules may be modified for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Civ.
4
R. 16(b)(4). “Mere failure to complete discovery within the time allowed does not constitute
5
good cause.” Local Civ. R. 16(b)(4). Whether to grant or deny a continuance of trial is at the
6
discretion of the Court. Rios-Barrios v. I.N.S., 776 F.2d 859, 862–63 (9th Cir. 1985). When
7
considering the propriety of a continuance, a court should consider four factors: (1) the diligence
8
in preparing for trial of the party seeking a continuance; (2) the need for a continuance; (3) the
9
inconvenience to the opposing party, the witnesses, and the Court; and (4) the hardship a denial
10
of a continuance would cause the defendant. United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, 791 F.2d 666,
11
670–71 (9th Cir. 1986).
12
B.
13
Analysis
1. Diligence in preparing for trial
14
The original 40 class members were identified in July 2015. (Dkt. No. 60-1 at 2.)
15
Between then and July 2016, 19 of the 20 current Plaintiffs were joined and all remaining claims
16
were filed. (Dkt. Nos. 29, 35, 77, 78, and 124.) Plaintiff Hamilton was the last to join in
17
September 2016. (Dkt. No. 142.) Defendants moved to stay depositions until the last day to join
18
parties; the Court denied that motion. (Dkt. Nos. 108 and 134.) Defendants did not issue written
19
discovery to the new Plaintiffs until October 25, 2016. (Dkt. No. 187 at 2.) Depositions did not
20
begin until the middle of December 2016. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ assertion of privilege as to healthcare
21
records dates back to February 6, 2015. (Dkt. No. 187-1.) Defendants only recently sought
22
medical records. (See Dkt. No. 166 at 1.) Finally, Defendants recently issued subpoenas that
23
were clearly overbroad, which required a motion to quash, and delayed progression of the
24
litigation. (Dkt. Nos. 164 and 196.) The first factor does not weigh in favor of granting a
25
continuance.
26
//
ORDER
PAGE - 2
1
2. The need for a continuance
2
Defendants claim they have significant amounts of discovery to complete and that
3
multiple motions to compel may be needed. (Dkt. No. 180 at 4–8.) While this may be true, 19 of
4
the 20 Plaintiffs have already been deposed. Defendants have also indicated that they plan to file
5
multiple summary judgment motions.1 (Id. at 2.) Finally, Defendants maintain they need more
6
time to explore settlement with each individual Plaintiff. (Id.) Trial is currently set for over three
7
years from the date of the initial complaint. The second factor weighs in favor of a continuance
8
only to the extent that it will facilitate the completion of discovery and settlement discussions.
9
3. Inconvenience to opposing parties, witnesses, and the Court
10
The first Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint was filed over
11
six years ago. (Dkt. No. 186 at 1.) Plaintiffs brought suit in 2014. (Dkt. No. 1.) This case has
12
carried on long enough and both Plaintiffs and Defendants deserve a timely resolution. This
13
factor does not weigh in favor of a continuance.
14
4. Hardship to Defendants
15
Defendants have had ample time to prepare this case for trial. Most of the hardship to
16
Defendants in denying a continuance is attributable to a lack of diligence. This factor does not
17
weigh in favor of a continuance.
18
III.
19
CONCLUSION
On the whole, the factors identified in 2.61 Acres of Land do not warrant a continuance in
20
this case. However, in the interest of completing discovery and facilitating potential settlement
21
negotiations, the Court finds good cause to continue trial, although not to February 20, 2018, as
22
requested by Defendants. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to continue trial (Dkt.
23
24
25
26
1
The Court would remind the parties that discovery motions are disfavored and encourages the
parties to work any discovery issues out amongst themselves. Further, should a motion for
summary judgment be necessary, the Court encourages the parties to request additional pages
and submit an omnibus motion, as opposed to multiple, separate motions.
ORDER
PAGE - 3
1
No. 180) is GRANTED IN PART. Trial is continued from October 23, 2017 to November 27,
2
2017. The discovery cutoff is changed from June 23, 2017 to July 21, 2017. The dispositive
3
motion filing deadline is changed from July 24, 2017 to August 21, 2017. The Court sets a
4
mediation deadline of October 20, 2017.
5
6
DATED this 19th day of May, 2017.
7
A
8
9
10
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
PAGE - 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?