Brunner v. City of Lake Stevens et al

Filing 79

MINUTE ORDER by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour denying 63 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. (SSM)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 NATALIE BRUNNER, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MINUTE ORDER v. CITY OF LAKE STEVENS, ANDREW THOR, DAN LORENTZEN, and DOES 1-500, 14 15 CASE NO. C15-1763-JCC Defendants. The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Natalie Brunner’s motion to reopen discovery (Dkt. No. 63). Brunner offers three reasons why the Court should grant her motion. First, Brunner lists a number of personal and professional conflicts that kept her counsel from timely participating in discovery. (See id. at 1-2.) While the Court is sympathetic to counsel’s woes, it also agrees with Defendants that “it is always something with Mr. Hildes.” (See Dkt. No. 69 at 2; see also Dkt. Nos. 18, 33, 60, 66.) And, as the Honorable Marsha Pechman, United States District Judge remarked, “failure to comply with Court deadlines [has been] a pattern for Mr. Hildes.” Moba v. Total Transp. Servs., Inc., 2014 WL 3050461 at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 3, 2014). Juggling personal and professional commitments is a challenge every lawyer must face. Such commitments do not excuse the tardiness seen here. MINUTE ORDER, C15-1763-JCC PAGE - 1 1 Second, Brunner points to the “disagreement” over Defendant Andrew Thor’s 2 deposition, which “required the cancellation of Thor’s scheduled deposition.” (Dkt. No. 63 at 2.) 3 But this delay was in part caused by Brunner’s insistence on attending that deposition, despite 4 the protective order she obtained against Thor that “explicitly prohibit[ed] Thor’s participation in 5 the deposition if Brunner [wa]s present.” (Dkt. No. 55 at 2.) More importantly, the Court 6 resolved that disagreement a month before the discovery deadline. Brunner offers no reason why 7 she did not seek an extension at that time. 8 Finally, Brunner complains of a conflict with opposing counsel over scheduling 9 Lieutenant Lambier’s deposition—the communication over which occurred more than a month 10 before the discovery deadline—and opposing counsel’s refusal to extend the discovery deadline 11 past January 9. (Dkt. No. 63 at 3.) It is clear from the record that the attorneys in this case have 12 not always worked well together. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 15, 31, 33, 46.) But again, these 13 complaints do not explain Brunner’s persistent inability to meet deadlines or at least file a timely 14 request for extension. 15 Brunner has not shown good cause to modify the case schedule and reopen discovery. 16 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Her motion (Dkt. No. 63) is DENIED. The pending summary 17 judgment motions shall be resolved on the record currently before this Court. An order on those 18 motions shall be forthcoming. 19 DATED this 8th day of February 2017. 20 William M. McCool Clerk of Court 21 s/Paula McNabb Deputy Clerk 22 23 24 25 26 MINUTE ORDER, C15-1763-JCC PAGE - 2

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?