Holmes et al v. Yct. Nova et al
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 68 Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Deadline for Dispositive Motions, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ROBERT HOLMES, et al.,
Case No. C16-1422RSL
YCT. NOVA, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION
This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Deadline for
Dispositive Motions.” Dkt. # 68. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and
exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court finds as follows:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), case management deadlines established by the
Court “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The case
management order in this case likewise states “[t]hese are firm dates that can be changed
only by order of the Court, not by agreement of counsel or the parties. The Court will
alter these dates only upon good cause shown . . . .” Dkt. # 27 at 2. Rule 16 was amended
in 1983 to require scheduling orders that govern pre-trial as well as trial procedure. The
purpose of the change was to improve the efficiency of federal litigation: leaving the
parties to their own devices until shortly before trial was apparently costly and resulted in
undue delay. Under the new rule, once a case management schedule issues, changes will
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE - 1
be made only if the movant shows “good cause.”
Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the
party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial
schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met with the diligence of the party
seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983
amendment) . . . .
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). See also
Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (where plaintiff
failed to “demonstrate diligence in complying with the dates set by the district court,”
good cause was not shown).
The deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case was June 13, 2017.
Plaintiffs have not justified their belated attempt to file a motion for summary judgment.
If defendant Stephen Yadvish’s testimony were critical to plaintiffs’ ability to seek
dispositive relief (a fact which is not supported by the existing record), plaintiffs should
have pursued that testimony earlier in the litigation. Plaintiffs have known since October
2016 when its dispositive motions were due, and nothing prevented them from satisfying
that deadline. Plaintiffs have not shown that they acted diligently in seeking dispositive
relief and have not established good cause for extending the case management deadline.
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to extend the dispositive motion
deadline is DENIED.
Dated this 14th day of July, 2017.
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE - 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?