United States of America, Ex rel. Raju A.T. Dahlstrom et al v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington et al

Filing 69

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Relator Raju A.T. Dahlstrom's 68 Motion to extend the noting date of Individual Defendants' summary judgment motion 64 . Mr. Dahlstrom's responsive memorandum due 7/8/2019; Individual Defendants' rely memorandum due 7/17/2019. Individual Defendants' 64 MOTION for Summary Judgment is renoted for 7/17/2019. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex
rel. RAJU A.T. DAHLSTROM, et
al.,

12

Plaintiffs,
v.

13
14

SAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN TRIBE
OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

CASE NO. C16-0052JLR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
RENOTE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

15
Defendants.
16
I.

17
18
19
20
21
22

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is Plaintiff Relator Raju A.T. Dahlstrom’s motion to renote
Defendants Ronda Kay Metcalf, Christine Marie Morlock, and Robert Larry Morlock’s
(collectively, “Individual Defendants”) motion for summary judgment from June 28,
2019, to July 26, 2019. (Mot. (Dkt. # 68).) Mr. Dahlstrom seeks to renote Individual
Defendants’ motion because (1) the deposition of Dr. Christine Morlock will not occur

ORDER - 1

1

until June 14, 2019, and (2) there is a delay in obtaining the transcripts of Ms. Metcalf’s

2

and Mr. Morlock’s depositions from Thomas Court Reporting Services. (Id. at 2.) The

3

court has considered Mr. Dahlstrom’s motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the

4

applicable law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Mr.

5

Dahlstrom’s motion as described below.

6
7

II.

ANALYSIS

First, by agreeing to conduct Dr. Morlock’s deposition on June 14, 2019, the

8

parties improperly agreed to modify the case schedule without the court’s permission.

9

The discovery cutoff in this matter was June 10, 2019. (Sched. Order (Dkt. # 63) at 1

10

(indicating that the parties must complete discovery by June 10, 2019).) The court’s

11

order states that case schedule deadlines are “firm” and “can be changed only by order of

12

the court, not by agreement of counsel or parties.” (Id. at 2.) The court sets case

13

schedules and expects the parties to adhere to those schedules specifically to avoid

14

motions like the one presently before the court. Although the court will allow the

15

deposition of Dr. Morlock to go forward on June 14, 2019, the court does not consider

16

the parties’ violation of its case scheduling order to be good cause for extending the

17

noting date of Individual Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (See id. (“[F]ailure to

18

complete discovery within the time allowed is not recognized as good cause.”).) The

19

court further cautions all counsel that any further violations of the court’s orders in this

20

matter may result in the imposition of sanctions.

21
22

Second, neither Mr. Dahlstrom, nor his counsel, submits a declaration
substantiating his difficulty obtaining deposition transcripts from Thomas Court

ORDER - 2

1

Reporting Services. (See generally Dkt.) Although Mr. Dahlstrom states that Thomas

2

Court Reporting Services is suffering a “backup” (Mot. at 2), he does not discuss the

3

possibility of requesting expedited service for an additional fee (see generally id.).

4

Although Ms. Metcalf’s and Mr. Morlock’s May 21, 2019, depositions were taken within

5

the discovery period, they were taken close to the end of that period and after the May 10,

6

2019, deadline for discovery motions. (See Mot. at 2; see also Sched. Order at 1 (stating

7

that the deadline for all motions related to discovery is May 10, 2019).) One risk of

8

waiting to conduct important discovery until the end of the discovery period is the

9

possible delay in obtaining deposition transcripts. This is a known risk for any litigator,

10

particularly one of Mr. Dahlstrom’s counsel’s experience. Accordingly, the court does

11

not consider the circumstances surrounding Ms. Metcalf’s and Mr. Morlock’s depositions

12

or the transcription of those depositions to be good cause for extending the noting date of

13

Individual Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

14

Finally, extending the date as Mr. Dahlstrom suggests would provide him with an

15

unfair advantage. Such an extension would allow him twice the amount of time

16

ordinarily provided under the court’s Local Rules for responding to a dispositive motion.

17

See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) (stating that all dispositive motions “shall be

18

noted for consideration on a date no earlier than the fourth Friday after filing and service

19

of the motion” and “[a]ny oppositions papers shall be filed and served not later than the

20

Monday before the noting date”). Further, the court could not provide a commensurate

21

extension to Individual Defendants for their reply memorandum because such an

22

extension would—in all practicality—violate the cutoff date for dispositive motions.

ORDER - 3

1

(See Sched. Order at 1 (stating that the deadline for dispositive motions is July 9, 2019,

2

which under Local Rule W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) would ordinarily result in a noting date

3

no later than August 2, 2019).) Thus, whereas under Mr. Dahlstrom’s proposed noting

4

date of July 26, 2019, he would obtain an additional four weeks to file his responsive

5

memorandum, the court could provide Individual Defendants with, at most, a one-week

6

extension for their reply memorandum—from July 26, 2019, to August 2, 2019. The

7

imbalance in these equities counsels against granting Mr. Dahlstrom’s motion.

8
9

Nevertheless, the court is not without some flexibility. The court will grant Mr.
Dahlstrom 14 additional days in which to file his responsive memorandum. Mr.

10

Dahlstrom’s response is now due on Monday, July 8, 2019. This extension should be

11

sufficient to address any issues encountered with delays in deposition transcription. In

12

addition, to balance the equities, the court will adjust the deadline for Individual

13

Defendants’ reply memorandum. Individual Defendants’ reply memorandum is now due

14

on Wednesday, July 17, 2019. This extension will not adversely impact the remainder of

15

the trial calendar or conflict with the dispositive motions cutoff.

16

III.

17

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part

18

Mr. Dahlstrom’s motion to extend the noting date of Individual Defendants’ summary

19

judgment motion (Dkt. # 68). Mr. Dahlstrom’s responsive memorandum is now due on

20

Monday, July 8, 2019, and Individual Defendants’ reply memorandum is now due on

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 4

1

Wednesday, July 17, 2019. Finally, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to renote Individual

2

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to July 17, 2019.

3

Dated this 14th day of June, 2019.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 5