Holmes et al v. Yct. Nova et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 68 Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Deadline for Dispositive Motions, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 ROBERT HOLMES, et al., 9 10 11 12 Plaintiffs, Case No. C16-1422RSL v. YCT. NOVA, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE Defendants. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Deadline for 15 Dispositive Motions.” Dkt. # 68. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and 16 exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court finds as follows: 17 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), case management deadlines established by the 18 Court “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The case 19 management order in this case likewise states “[t]hese are firm dates that can be changed 20 only by order of the Court, not by agreement of counsel or the parties. The Court will 21 alter these dates only upon good cause shown . . . .” Dkt. # 27 at 2. Rule 16 was amended 22 in 1983 to require scheduling orders that govern pre-trial as well as trial procedure. The 23 purpose of the change was to improve the efficiency of federal litigation: leaving the 24 parties to their own devices until shortly before trial was apparently costly and resulted in 25 undue delay. Under the new rule, once a case management schedule issues, changes will 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE - 1 1 2 3 4 5 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) . . . . 6 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). See also 7 Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (where plaintiff 8 failed to “demonstrate diligence in complying with the dates set by the district court,” 9 good cause was not shown). 10 The deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case was June 13, 2017. 11 Plaintiffs have not justified their belated attempt to file a motion for summary judgment. 12 If defendant Stephen Yadvish’s testimony were critical to plaintiffs’ ability to seek 13 dispositive relief (a fact which is not supported by the existing record), plaintiffs should 14 have pursued that testimony earlier in the litigation. Plaintiffs have known since October 15 2016 when its dispositive motions were due, and nothing prevented them from satisfying 16 that deadline. Plaintiffs have not shown that they acted diligently in seeking dispositive 17 relief and have not established good cause for extending the case management deadline. 18 19 20 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline is DENIED. 21 22 Dated this 14th day of July, 2017. 23 A 24 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 25 26 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?