Diversified Lenders, LLC v. Amazon Logistics, Inc. et al

Filing 101

ORDER granting in part plaintiff's 93 Motion for a continuance of the case management deadlines. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a revised case management order which provides at least thirty days between that date and the dispositive motion deadline. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

DIVERSIFIED LENDERS, LLC,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

Cause No. C16-1232RSL

v.
AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and
VERTICAL HOLDINGS UNLIMITED,
LLC,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND
CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES

12

Defendants.
13
14

AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,

15
16
17
18
19

Cross-Claim Plaintiff,
v.
VERTICAL HOLDINGS UNLIMITED,
LLC,
Cross-Claim Defendant.

20
21

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff Diversified Lenders, LLC’s Motion to

22

Modify the Court’s Amended Order Setting Trial Date & Related Dates.” Dkt. # 93. Although

23

defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s third requests for production within the thirty days

24

allotted by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the bulk of the production (10,000 pages) was

25

completed on May 26, 2017, with a handful of documents produced thereafter. Recognizing that

26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES

1

the delay in production would impact the orderly completion of discovery, defendant repeatedly

2

offered to discuss an extension of the case management deadlines. Plaintiff was non-responsive

3
4
5

until May 31, 2017, when it accused defendant of wrongfully withholding the documents until
45 days before the discovery cutoff. Defendant’s supplemental productions were made on June
19, June 30, and July 6.

6

On July 5, 2017, four days before the discovery cutoff, plaintiff requested a telephone
7
8
9

conference to discuss the case management deadlines. Defendant agreed to the conference, but
was unwilling to agree to the four month extension plaintiff requested. Rather, defendant

10

stipulated to the completion of its 30(b)(6) depositions outside the discovery period and agreed

11

to postpone the dispositive motion deadline. Plaintiff filed this motion, arguing that it needs

12

additional time in which to serve additional discovery regarding the newly-produced documents,

13

to issue subpoenas to third parties, and to amend its complaint.

14

Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties, the

15

Court finds that a four month extension of the discovery deadline is not warranted. Plaintiff has

16

had the bulk of defendant’s production since the end of May: any follow-up discovery should

17

have been served immediately and/or pursued at the 30(b)(6) depositions. Nevertheless, a limited

18
19

extension of the case management deadlines is appropriate to ensure that the parties have time to
digest all of the available information before drafting their summary judgment motions. The last

20

deposition is scheduled, by agreement, for August 16, 2017. The Clerk of Court is therefore
21
22
23
24
25

directed to issue a revised case management order which provides at least thirty days between
that date and the dispositive motion deadline. The deadline for amending pleadings passed on
May 10, 2017: plaintiff was well aware of that date and has made no effort to show good cause
for its extension.

26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES

-2-

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of the case
management deadlines is GRANTED in part.

3
4

Dated this 7th day of August, 2017.

5

A

6

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES

-3-