Hawkins v. United States of America et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting parties' 14 stipulated motion and extending the discovery cut-off to 6/20/2017. 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

SABELITA HAWKINS,

10

CASE NO. C16-0498JLR
ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATED MOTION

Plaintiff,

11
v.
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15
I.

INTRODUCTION

16
Before the court is Plaintiff Sabelita Hawkins and Defendants United States of
17
America, Department of Veterans Affairs, and VA Puget Sound Health Care System’s
18
(collectively, “Defendants) stipulated motion to extend the discovery cut-off in this
19
matter for approximately thirty days. (Stip. Mot. (Dkt. # 14) at 2.) The court GRANTS
20
the parties’ stipulated motion and extends the discovery cut-off to June 20, 2017.
21
//
22

ORDER - 1

1

II.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

2

Plaintiff Sabelita Hawkins filed this lawsuit on April 6, 2016. (See Compl. (Dkt.

3

# 1).) In their joint status report, the parties represented that the case would be ready for

4

trial on August 21, 2017, and proposed a discovery cut-off 120 days before trial. (JSR

5

(Dkt. # 7) at 2, 4.) In its scheduling order, the court set trial to begin on September 25,

6

2017, the dispositive motions deadline on June 27, 2017, and the discovery cut-off on

7

May 30, 2017. (Sched. Order (Dkt. # 8) at 1.) On March 17, 2017, the court granted the

8

parties’ stipulated motion to extend the deadline for the disclosure of expert testimony.

9

(3/17/17 Order (Dkt. # 12) at 3-4.)

10

On May 19, 2017, Ms. Hawkins’s counsel contacted the court to request a

11

conference regarding a discovery issue. (5/19/17 Order (Dkt. # 13) at 1.) The court

12

ordered the parties to file brief statements describing the nature of the discovery issue and

13

set a telephonic hearing for May 23, 2017. (See id. at 1-2.) In lieu of filing statements

14

regarding the discovery issue, the parties filed a stipulated motion in which they seek an

15

approximately 30-day extension of the discovery cut-off. (Stip. Mot. at 2.) Due to the

16

stipulation, the court struck the telephonic hearing. (See 5/23/17 Min. Entry.)

17

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be

18

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

19

The Rule 16 “good cause” standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to

20

modify the pretrial scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

21

604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule

22

throughout the subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186

ORDER - 2

1

F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.

2

Va. 1995). In part, the “good cause” standard requires the parties to demonstrate “the

3

development of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at

4

the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference.” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608. Further, the

5

court’s scheduling order states that the dates are “firm” and that “[t]he court will alter

6

these dates only upon good cause shown.” (Sched. Order at 2.) The scheduling order

7

also states that “failure to complete discovery within the time allowed is not recognized

8

as good cause.” (Id.)

9

The parties seek to continue the discovery cut-off by approximately one month.

10

(See Stip. Mot. at 2.) They contend that good cause exists for extending the cut-off

11

because the parties have been unable to locate a particular doctor and the extra time

12

would allow the parties to locate and depose that doctor. (Id.) The court, however,

13

generally sets the discovery cut-off 30 days prior to the deadline for filing dispositive

14

motions and motions challenging expert testimony to ensure that the record is complete

15

when the court considers such motions. For that reason, the court finds good cause to

16

extend the parties’ discovery cut-off only to June 20, 2017, instead of the full 30 days the

17

parties request. The earlier date will allow the parties additional time to locate the doctor

18

at issue, but ensure that the record is complete when the parties’ dispositive motions are

19

due on June 27, 2017. (See Sched. Order at 1.)

20

//

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 3

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION

The court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion (Dkt. # 14) and extends the

3

discovery cut-off to June 20, 2017. However, the court cautions the parties that it is

4

unlikely to look favorably on further requests to extend the deadlines in this case.

5

Dated this 24th day of May, 2017.

6
7

A

8

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 4