Shokri v. Boeing Company

Filing 64

ORDER granting 63 Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadline for Plaintiff's Discovery Motion; deadline extended to 9/22/2017. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

BEHROUZ SHOKRI,

9
10
11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20

THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation,
Defendant.
1.

23
24
25
26

Pursuant to FRCP 16, Plaintiff Behrouz Shokri and Defendant The Boeing

Company (collectively, “the Parties”), respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiff an
additional week to file his discovery motion pursuant to this Court’s August 24, 2017 Order on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. The Parties have conferred and jointly represent that good cause
exists for this extension, making Plaintiff’s motion to compel due on September 22, 2017, so
that Plaintiff can evaluate Defendant’s recent supplementation to determine what issues remain
to be heard by this Court.

21
22

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR
PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTION

v.

13
14

No. C16-1132 RSM

Plaintiff,

A.
2.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff filed his Complaint for Damages on July 22, 2016. Dkt. 1. The current

trial date is January 22, 2018, the discovery cutoff is September 25, 2017, and the deadline for
filing discovery motions was August 25, 2017. Dkt. 12.
3.

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery and Production of

Documents on July 6, 2017. Dkt. 15.
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE
FOR PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTION
(Cause No. 2:16-cv-01132 RSM)
Page 1

THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

4.

On August 24, 2017, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, but also ordered the

following:
Further, the Court recognizes that the discovery motion deadline in this matter is
August 25, 2017. . . Accordingly, should Plaintiff determine that a Motion to
Compel is necessary after an additional conference with Defendant as directed in
this Order, he will be allowed to file such a motion no later than September 15,
2017. Dkt. 42.
5.

On September 6, the Parties held an additional discovery conference in

compliance with this Court’s order.
6.

Defendant provided Plaintiff with supplemental production and supplemental

answers on September 13. This gave Plaintiff insufficient time to adequately evaluate the
remaining deficiencies and file a motion to compel by September 15, particularly because his
Lead Counsel is in a deposition in this case, tomorrow, September 15.
7.

The Parties conferred on September 14, 2017, and have agreed that Plaintiff has

good cause for a one-week extension to assess the remaining deficiencies and, in turn, to move
the deadline for a motion to compel to September 22, 2017.
8.

The Parties also contacted the chambers of The Honorable Ricardo Martinez and

spoke to the Docket Clerk to inform the Court that this stipulated motion was forthcoming.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

B.

EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

The Parties rely upon this Motion and the pleadings, files and records in this
proceeding.
C.

AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT

This Motion is based upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, corresponding case
law, and the Court’s power to control its calendar. Orders entered before the final pretrial
conference may be modified upon a showing of “good cause.” Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing FRCP 16(b)). Here, “good cause”
exists for the Court to move the deadline for Plaintiff’s motion to compel by one week. As
discussed in the Statement of Facts, the Parties stipulate that moving the deadline by one week
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE
FOR PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTION
(Cause No. 2:16-cv-01132 RSM)
Page 2

THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
[phone]

1

would give Plaintiff the necessary time to evaluate the production and answers received two

2

days before the deadline for his motion to compel, set by the Court. The Parties jointly

3

represent that good cause exists for the Court to extend the deadline for Plaintiff’s motion to

4

compel by one week, making it due September 22, 2017.
D.

5
6

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, the Parties respectfully request that the Court grant their

7

Stipulated Motion allowing Plaintiff an additional week to file a motion to compel, as

8

described above.

9

STIPULATED to this 14th day of September, 2017.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE
FOR PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTION
(Cause No. 2:16-cv-01132 RSM)
Page 3

THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
[phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Attorneys for Defendant:

4

By: s/ Scott C.G. Blankenship

By: s/ Lincoln O. Bisbee

5

Scott C. G. Blankenship, WSBA No. 21431
Jordan A. Taren, WSBA No. 50066
The Blankenship Law Firm, P.S.
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Laurence A. Shapero, WSBA No. 31301
Fox Rothschild LLP
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4500
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

1
2
3

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Clifford D. Sethness, WSBA No. 14110
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Lincoln O. Bisbee, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Morgan Lewis & Blockius LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

20
21
22
23
24
25

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of
September 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE
FOR PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTION
(Cause No. 2:16-cv-01132 RSM)
Page 4

THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
Seattle, Washington 98104
[phone]